Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory and Protestants do not?

[flameburns623]

But this is my point. We have quite different beliefs about the nature of original sin and its effects. You believe in Total Depravity. I do not.
[/quote]

We probably do have different beliefs about original sin. Which happens to be a peripheral and not a core doctrine. I recollect reading something about distictions being drawn between Western and Eastern interpretations of Original Sin as two quite different concepts. The issue flew right over my bald pate and landed back into the Garden somewhere. In any case, core doctrines of Christianity get laid out in such estimable documents as the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, etcetera.

]
Don’t like Clark Carlton. People who change their faith and become Orthodox should restrain themselves from writing for the first 20 years Some of them just use their new faith as an outlet for their previous prejudices against Catholic or Protestants. All very “clever” but boorish and boring…

I think you and I have interacted before. I’ve heard exactly the same comment made about Carlton on an Orthodox forum. So commend to me some books by writers you admire. (I’ve read one item by Timothy Ware, long long ago it seems. I think he goes by a different name these days . . .) I’ve cited gobs of books myself. Maybe we can get people–on this forum at least–back into the habit of actually learning something about a subject before pontificating about it.:twocents:

 

[RedGolum]

Writer:

. I agree with a priest who said that purgatory may be over in an instant, and we might not even be aware that it took place. Personally, I think of it in terms of the gate which we step through to enter heaven beyond. It is an acknowledgement of how unprepared we are to face our Creator.

The state of our natures after death and before heaven is something that has been debated since the founding of Christanity. The concept of a midway or purgatory was one way to deal with this.

I don’t think that any would disagree that our sinful natures as human beings will be changed or removed before we come into God’s presence. What we differ is on how that is acomplished.

When a Roman Catholic starts talking about Purgatory to a none RC., the other person more often than not pictures a place of confinment, torture, and and extended period of both. In other words, a little hell. The Roman Catholic (depending on there personal understanding) may be talking about that, or may be talking about the removal of sin before we come before God. In the latter case, few non RC’s would disagree with them.

Lutheran theology is that at death, the sinful nature is expunged from the Christian, since nothing unclean can be in the preseance of God. Not sure exactly how that will happen, but I know that it does.

 

[jimmy]

Luke24:

Interesting to say the least; Yet the Bible teaches Jesus died once for all. I wonder what you do with that? Can you tell me where once a regular human being died for the sins of the world? Can you tell me where one person outside of Jesus was sinless? Who else is to take away sin but Jesus? Only He can and only He can forgive…check it out! The Bible plainly teaches it is by faith and faith alone that we are saved! Look up faith in any concordance you have and then check out salvation. You will find the truth, and it is not in your catechism.
And to think and believe me, I was once a catholic, wanting to be a nun. Faith and Hope: the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Praise God I believe in Him and Him alone. No extras, no garbage.

You believe that faith alone saves you but that is nowhere in the bible. In fact it is contradictory to the bible.

13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity

. 1Cor13;13
I ask you if you are saved by faith alone, then how is charity(love) a greater gift than faith?

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? **17 **

So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? **22 **Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. **James2;16-26 **

It says 3 times that faith without works is dead. It also says that you are not justified by faith alone. Verse 22 says that Abrahams faith was perfected by works.

I hilighted verse 19 because it says that even the demons have faith. By your theollogy the demons are saved. Maybe that is true if going to Hell is saved but if I have to go to Hell to be saved then I don’t want to be saved.

To Be Continued
*

 

[jimmy]

10 And the people asked him, saying: What then shall we do? 11 And he answering, said to them: **He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner. **12 And the publicans also came to be baptized, and said to him: Master, what shall we do? 13 But he said to them: Do nothing more than that which is appointed you. 14 And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: **Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay. **15 And as the people were of opinion, and all were thinking in their hearts of John, that perhaps he might be the Christ; Luke3;10-15

If I’m not mistaken, verse 11 says you must give to the needy to be saved. In verse 14 it also says do no violence in order to be saved. These both go against your theology.

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 **Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. **22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matt19;16-24

This passage here specifically talks about doing something in order to be saved. The rich man obviously had faith, if he did not he wouldn’t have asked the question. It seems like you are ignoring verses from the bible. There is no where in the bible where it says that faith alone saves you.

Yes you are saved by faith, but you must also have love. As James said, faith without works is dead.

 

[RedGolum]

jimmy:

Yes you are saved by faith, but you must also have love. As James said, faith without works is dead.

Yes, but works without faith is dead. If you must do works, the question becomes: How much? How much is it to make us worthy to be saved?

All that I own? All that I am? Can anything I do be acceptable to God?

Paul, in the very same place you quoted says that you need more than works. Does that mean I can say “I’m saved” and go back to my life unchanged? No. If you truely have faith, what are you going to do with it? Loveing Jesus means you must try to live like Him, and that means giving to the poor, helping those in need, WORKING to sanctify ourselves in order that we may more truely love Christ.

 

[jimmy]

RedGolum:

Yes, but works without faith is dead. If you must do works, the question becomes: How much? How much is it to make us worthy to be saved?

All that I own? All that I am? Can anything I do be acceptable to God?

Paul, in the very same place you quoted says that you need more than works. Does that mean I can say “I’m saved” and go back to my life unchanged? No. If you truely have faith, what are you going to do with it? Loveing Jesus means you must try to live like Him, and that means giving to the poor, helping those in need, WORKING to sanctify ourselves in order that we may more truely love Christ.

I agree, you can not work your way into Heaven, but my point was that faith alone in dead. You must have both in order to be saved.
Like the passage says, “the devil also believes and trembles”. I don’t think the Devil is saved.

 

[RedGolum]

jimmy:

I agree, you can not work your way into Heaven, but my point was that faith alone in dead. You must have both in order to be saved.

Like the passage says, “the devil also believes and trembles”. I don’t think the Devil is saved.

I made a point because this is THE primary place where Roman Catholics and many Protestants talk right past each other.

Paul says “show me your works and I will show you my faith”, James says “show me your faith and I will show you my works,”. Both are right, and both are directed at different issues. Paul was talking to those who believed (and convinced Peter for a while) that a Christian needed to follow the Jewish law in order to be saved.

James was talking to those who said that they had faith, but their life and actions did not show that.

Faith is the important thing, Christians all believe that. However that doesn’t mean we have a “get out of jail free” card. We are to live our lives following Jesus, fully knowing that we can and will fail.

I imagine you think that many non Catholics believe that since they have “faith” then nothing more is required of them. That they can sin as much as they want, and they are not in danger of hell.
Would you believe that one of the misconceptions that many non Catholics have of the RCC is that you can do what ever you want, just go to the priest and get a penance?
In reality, what Christians must do is have faith, have genuine repentance (know that their sin is wrong and make an effort to not sin again), and to show God’s love through their actions.

 

[Churchmouse]

Jay,

Christianity – which was also known as Catholicism for the first thousand years A.D. – was a natural outgrowth from Judaism. The Catholic Church was founded by the Jewish Messiah – the Christ, the Anointed One – upon Peter, the Rock. His Twelve Apostles, all leaders of the newborn Church, were faithful and observant Jews.

The Church didn’t hold to purgatory, Mariology, and other “Roman” Catholic distinctives. Whether the Church was a natural outgrowth of Judaism or not, it doesn’t mean they held to a purgatorial belief considering the variety of Jewish sects at the time of Christ and, of them, a small minority held to this view. And then there is the question of groups such as the Pharisees which consisted of two rabbinic schools, the disciples of Rabbi Hillel which comprised the larger school, and the disciples of Rabbi Shammai which comprised the smaller school. There were disagreements between these two schools, including the issue of afterlife purgation.

Even after the Crucifixion and Ascension of Our Lord and the birth of His Church, the Apostles continued to attend synagogue services. Then they and their followers – first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26) – who were the Church, gathered together in members’ houses to celebrate the “breaking of the bread” – the Mass (Acts 2:42, 20:7, et al.). Acts documents how intertwined were Christianity and Judaism.

I don’t see how this is relevant to purgatory. You inject the “Mass” into the verses in Acts, but there is nothing resembling it. It is simply Christians gathering together in obedience to our Lord and in remembrance of what He did for us. This entailed a meal with the bread and wine being the focal point of remembrance, but I stray, this thread is about purgatory, correct?

Continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

The Jews believed that souls were purified after death, in preparation for their union with God

Again, not all Jews believed in this, but a small minority.

(example: “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (RSV, See 2 Maccabees 12:38-45). They still do. They just don’t call this process “purgatory.” Jews prayed for their dead at the time of Jesus and still do today.

Can you provide proof of this? That the Jews prayed for the dead at the time of Jesus? Are you basing this completely on one passage in 2 Maccabees? Or do you have other verses proving that they prayed for the dead at the time of Jesus? Also, you’re “associating” praying for the dead *with * purgatory, but you haven’t elaborated on why you believe this to be the case. Praying for the dead doesn’t necessarily imply they’re being prayed out of some sort of afterlife purgation. With that said, look at 2 Maccabees. Judas Maccabeus isn’t praying that the souls of these men be released from a purgatory. Rather, it says two things: That they prayed that God would put it out of His “remembrance” and that he was “mindful of the resurrection.” There’s nothing that even hints to a purgatory considering that the resurrection of the dead and purgatory are two very distinct things. What makes things even more complicated is that Judas attempts to do this when these men clearly are in mortal sin (to use the Catholic vernacular). Wearing amulets indicates a trust in what they represent, thus this is idolatry in the strictest sense of the word. So, the most this passage proves is that he prayed for the dead and that Judas’ “holy and good thought” is that these men would be delivered from the *hell of the damned at * the resurrection. There is nothing connecting this to a purgatorial belief if we take it to its logical conclusion. Now you can argue that these men died within the service of God, but that doesn’t change anything considering that mortal sin remains mortal and idolatry is specifically outlined in His commandments. Now, unless Judas believed one could be *prayed out * of the hell of the damned, it doesn’t make much sense. Concerning this passage, Roman Catholic medieval historian, Jacques Le Goff states:

“From the Old Testament, a single passage, taken from the Second Book of the Maccabees (which Protestants do not consider to be canonical) was pointed to by Christian theologians between the time of Augustine and the time of Thomas Aquinas as proving the existence of a belief in Purgatory. The passage describes a battle in which a number of Jewish soldiers, who are supposed to have committed a mysterious sin, are killed, after which Judas Maccabeus orders prayers on their behalf:

All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous judge, who had opened the things that were hid, betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw who before their eyes the things that came to pass for sins of those that were slain. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection; For if he had not hoped that they were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin (2 Macc. 12:41-46).
Continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

This is a difficult passage, concerning which there is disagreement among experts on ancient Judaism and biblical exegesis. It alludes to beliefs and practices *not mentioned * elsewhere in the Bible” [emphasis mine] (p.41-42, The Birth of Purgatory; Jacques Le Goff 1981, University of Chicago Press).

Now as to your claim that Jews still pray for the dead, again, this can be very deceptive. The majority of modern Jews don’t even believe in an eternal hell, but we’ll get to this later.

The Apostles – all devout Jews – taught the concept of after-death purification to their new Greek-speaking converts, the first Christians.

Now, that’s a huge assumption and one you won’t be able to prove. You’re assuming that the Apostles held to the Shammaic thought on this and that they taught this to others. To expand, there were two main schools of thought in Judaism, the school of Hillel and the smaller school of Shammai. The school of Shammai believed in an aspect of afterlife purification, but nothing resembling the Catholic view. The school of Hillel didn’t, believing that God’s mercies were too great and wouldn’t allow men to suffer in Gehenna:

“Rabbi Sammai teaches this: that there will be three groups at the judgment: one of the truly holy, another of the truly wicked, and a third in between. It is immediately written and sealed that the truly holy shall live until the end of time, and it is likewise written and sealed that the truly wicked shall remain in Gehenna, as it is written (Dan. 12:2). As for the third group, they shall go down to Gehenna for a time and then come up again, as it is written (Zech. 13:9 and 1 Sam. 2:6). But the Hillelites say: He who is abundant in mercy inclines toward mercy, and it is of them that David speaks (Ps. 116:1) unto God, who hears him, and responds in these terms: Sinners, Jew and Gentile alike, having sinned in their body, (shall be) punished in Gehenna for twelve months, and then reduced to nothingness.

The second citation is taken from a treatise on the courts (Sanhedrin). Its tenor is practically the same:

The Sammaites say this: there are three groups. One shall live until the end of time, the other shall remain forever in shame and contempt. These are the completely wicked, of whom the least wicked shall go down to Gehenna to be punished and come back up cured, according to Zechariah 13:9; it is of them that it is written (1 Sam. 2:6): the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The Hillelites say (Ex. 34:6) that God abounds in mercy; he inclines toward mercy; and of them David says this passage (Ps. 116:1): The sinners of Israel, guilty in their body, and the sinners of the nations of the world, guilty in their body, go down to Gehenna to be punished there for twelve months, then their souls are reduced to nothing and their bodies are burned and Gehenna vomits them up; they become ash and the wind disperses them to be trodden underfoot by the holy (Mal. 4, 3, 3, 21).

Finally, Rabbi Akiba, one of the leading scholars of the Mishnah, who died while being tortured after the failure of Bar-Kochba’s revolt, taught the same doctrine. He “also said that five things last twelve months: the judgment of the generation of the flood, the judgment of Job, the judgment of the Egyptians, the judgment of Gog and Magog in the future yet to come, and the judgment of the wicked in Gehenna, as it is written (Is. 46:23): from month to month.” (ibid p.40)
Continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

In terms of references, according to the Targum, Zechariah 13:9 speaks of the tribulation or distress (according to Rabbi Kimchi) that Israel will be put through and the reference to 1 Samuel 2:6 could be due to a misunderstanding of Sheol. Yet, overall, it wasn’t a common thought within the whole of Judaism, but held to by the smaller (and more stubborn) school of Shammai. As for those who did accept this folklore, the concept was quite different from Catholic thought:

“In the case of the death of a sibling, a child, or a spouse, Kaddish is recited for eleven months. The reason the Kaddish is said for eleven months, although the full mourning period lasts for twelve, has to do with folklore. According to a statement in the Talmud, when the most wicked people die, they are consigned to hell for a maximum of twelve months. Since recitation of the of the Kaddish is believed to help elevate the soul of the dead (see Sanhedrin 104a), reciting it for a full year would imply that one’s parent is one of those wicked people sentenced for a full year in hell; hence, the Kaddish is recited for only eleven months” (p. 631, Jewish Literacy; Rabbi Joseph Telushkin 1991, William Morrow & Company)

Similar to this folklore, Catholicism explains purgatory to be a “state” where one remains until the stains of sin are removed, but contrary to this folklore, Catholicism teaches that the stay in purgatory is unknown and somewhat dependent on the prayers and other indulgences of the faithful.

Regarding the history of afterlife purgation, according to the online Jewish Encyclopedia:

The idea of the purging fire through which the soul has to pass is found in the Zend-Avesta (“Bundahis,” xxx. 20): “All men will pass into the melted metal and become pure; to the righteous it will seem as though he walks through warm milk” (comp. Enoch, lii. 6-7, lxvii. 6-7). (jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=611&letter=P&search=purgatory)

Jacques Le Goff mimics this point in his book, citing the various historical cultures which may have influenced this thought.

Many Jewish sects today teach that Hell is not a place of eternal punishment, but rather a purification place (contrary to the Catholic purgatorial “state” which is distinct from the hell of the damned). Because Hell is refining to these Jews, and there is no such thing as eternal punishment, even the worst sinner will be in heaven no longer than twelve months (which opposes the concept of mortal sin), thus, what they believe today is actually “universalist” in nature:

“Hell also exists, but not in the way it’s usually described, as a place of torture and burning with fire. Here, to, we’re not sure of the meaning of its suffering. The closest we can come to understanding it is that it’s a place where we are estranged from God and our souls are purified from sin.

There is one thing Jews do know, though, about hell: It doesn’t have a sign on the door, as Dante described it, with the words, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” God would never be so cruel. The maximum time for anyone to have his or her soul “purified” in this place is twelve months. Very righteous people might possibly have “overnight cleaning service.” How long the process takes depends on how much has to be done. It’s only the very worst of all people who require the entire year for their purification.” (p.222, Understanding Judaism; Rabbi Benjamin Blech 1999 Alpha Books)
Continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

So, the bottom line is that the Jewish belief in afterlife purification applies to the smaller school of Judaism; comes from folklore; was most likely influenced by pagan means, and doesn’t resemble the Catholic doctrine in its essence.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. Christ taught the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Church. The Church has been teaching the concept of the purification of souls after death (purgatory) for the past 2,000 years because she learned it from the Apostles.

Why say that the Church has been teaching it for 2,000 years when, in reality, it was silent from the time of the Apostles through the first few centuries. If this were truly a valid belief then “why” would the church be silent regarding a “state” where the majority of all Christians go? The fact that the church was silent substantiates the argument that this is a later doctrine and not one held by the Apostles or the earliest church. You won’t find any evidence of this belief in the Catholic Church until Augustine, who provides what would become the basis for purgatory—and—you can only assume that this doctrine was “learned from the Apostles” because you have no proof except for a few verses Catholics claim “imply” a purgatory. Fact is, you’re trusting on an assumed “Apostolic” tradition that you have no evidence of to fall on. Yet, history argues against you and the silence is almost deafening. If this belief were truly “Apostolic” then surely there would be clear and ample evidence showing this teaching to be true, but there’s nothing—not in Scripture nor in the earliest history of the church. No, Newman’s “development of doctrine” isn’t a good argument either. If this belief were truly “Apostolic”, considering its importance in Christian eschatology, it would have been clearly understood and expounded just as clearly from the very beginnings of the church age. BTW, don’t try to equate the vagueness of a supposed purgatory with the Trinity as so many try to do. The Trinity is a logical extension of Scripture as opposed to a doctrine which must thrive on insinuation. The Scriptures express the triune nature of the Godhead in an exegetically sound manner as opposed to the “implications” of purgatory.

Protestants, basing their faith on Sola Scriptura, not only do not find purgatory in the Scriptures (because they don’t know how to recognize the Truth when they read it), but they are so far removed in time from the beginning of historical Christianity that they have cut themselves off from this knowledge.

Now how do you know this, Jay? Always with the ad hominem (I really wish the moderators would do something about this) and always with the blanket statements, but what’s strangely missing is why you believe this to be true. You simply assent to the Church’s word that it was taught and close your eyes to a history which claims otherwise. I don’t know—maybe you say these things to play on the emotions of other Catholics on this forum (as evidenced by the subsequent postings), but even they haven’t provided anything worthy of pause. Yet, I don’t see why you cannot dialogue on something without adding your fillers into the mix? It seems you get “exaggerated” when speaking of Protestants. Something I don’t expect from one who claims to have been one. Obviously, if purgatory wasn’t found in the early church and wasn’t alluded to until the time of Augustine, with it’s culmination in the 12th century, seems to me that Protestants *have a base * in their rejection of it and, thus, your statements above can be viewed as further rhetoric against Protestants.

Continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

Unless you provide clear evidence showing that the earliest church taught purgatory, everything you state, including your rhetoric, falls flat and you certainly cannot expect non-Catholics to take you seriously. You may have attended a very fundamentalist Baptist sect and may not have known better, but you don’t seem to know what comprises Sola Scriptura. “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t mean we cannot value history and tradition in determining what the early church believed. Neither does it mean that we cannot practice some of the traditions of the church. Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is the ultimate authority. It is the only tangible piece connecting us to the church of old. In this post, as of yet, I haven’t appealed to Scripture at all.

The New Testament came out of the Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church are reflected in the NT, not the other way around. Just because there is not a flat statement in the NT that “souls are purified after death in a process called purgatory” does not mean it isn’t there, or that Christ and His Apostles didn’t believe it and teach it.

The NT is reflected in some of the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are no Roman distinctives in the NT. Again, you may want to stick to the subject. The point is that Catholics must rely on verses which “imply” what they cannot prove, then, when realizing the lack of support, they appeal to a pedigree as if the early church taught it and passed it on. They completely excuse the silence within the first few centuries of the Church; a silence that *shouldn’t be * considering the importance of an alleged “state” where the majority of all Christians go. Yet we are asked to read between the lines; to read into the “implications” but nothing is really implied. We’re asked to accept that the “Apostles taught it” but there is no evidence of this! And yet, somehow, a doctrine this forceful manages to escape any clear teaching for centuries. How is it that something this “familiar” isn’t clearly taught within Scripture or within the first few centuries of the church? We’re asked to assume that they held to the school of Shammai when it is clear that Judaism was in disarray by the time Christ came on the scene. Why do you think that groups such as the Sadducees arose? Remember? They didn’t believe in a resurrection, angels, etc? What about the Essenes? Does this give you pause as to the state of Judaism when Christ started His ministry? In light of this, considering your opening statement, which brand of Judaism is Catholicism an “outgrowth” of? Regarding the NT, just like the OT, it came out of the mouth of God; they are God-breathed—their source is in God and isn’t dependent on any “church” for its existence. It is God’s word to man and not a reflection of the Church. With that said, we obviously don’t see Roman Catholic distinctives “reflected in the NT.” If that were the case, we’d be discussing baseball right now and the non-Catholics on this forum would have no excuse. Yet, overall, to get back to the crux of this thread, the early church didn’t believe in purgatory, thus purgatory is solely a distinction of Roman Catholicism and not one believed in or held to, as you claimed, for the “past 2000 years.”

Peace,
CM

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Katholikos:

The important thing to understand is that the New Testament is based upon the teaching Church that Christ founded, not vice versa. The Church was teaching before, while, and after the period in which the NT was being produced, and she is still teaching today.

Because the NT is not a textbook in Christianity, we should not expect doctrines and practices to always be clearly laid out. Catholics were writing to Catholics who had already been instructed orally in the Faith.The NT writings are supplemental and supportive of the doctrines these early Christians had already been taught and believed.

Dear Katholikos, Wherever and whenever I find you saying this, I promise I am going to l comment on it, because it is the answer (however unpleasant to some people), to so many of the questions that appear in these forums. I wonder if simply repeating this (even ad nauseam), as a sort of mantra might result in the idea penetrating the strange mental barricade that prevents, not only so-called Bible Christians, but also poorly catechized Catholics, from realizing the CHURCH CAME FIRST! No Church, no Bible! :yup:

I’m only sorry that I am a month late in getting to this; however, I shall support your explanation from here on out.

Many thanks,

Anna

 

[Churchmouse]

Anna Elizabeth:

Dear Katholikos, Wherever and whenever I find you saying this, I promise I am going to l comment on it, because it is the answer (however unpleasant to some people), to so many of the questions that appear in these forums. I wonder if simply repeating this (even ad nauseam), as a sort of mantra might result in the idea penetrating the strange mental barricade that prevents, not only so-called Bible Christians, but also poorly catechized Catholics, from realizing the CHURCH CAME FIRST! No Church, no Bible! :yup:

Hello,

This thread is about purgatory. A strange concept, not only absent from Scripture, but also from the writings of the earliest church until Augustine, centuries later, who introduced the concept. We can claim that the Church “orally” taught this “doctrine”, but in light of the evidence, or rather, lack thereof, this seems very unlikely.

You can keep on repeating the “mantra” if you’d like, but whether the Church came first is irrelevant. When you realize that beliefs such as purgatory came into the Church well after Pentecost, and there is absolutely no evidence of this teaching in the early church or in written Scripture, the “mantra” is exactly what it is, a redundant sound that means nothing to nobody, but only to those chanting it.

Peace,
CM

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. Christ taught the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Church. The Church has been teaching the concept of the purification of souls after death (purgatory) for the past 2,000 years because she learned it from the Apostles.

Huh! The Churches of the East are also 2000 years old - Jerusalem, Athens, Thessalonica, Corinth, Alexandria, Antioch… etc. They are even a few years *older *than the Church of Rome. But they did not learn anything about purgatory from the Apostles and they did not and do not teach purgatory.

If it were an ancient teaching in the Church taught by the Apostles you can bet your bottom dollar that you would still find it today in the Orthodox Church. But it’s not there.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

Huh! The Churches of the East are also 2000 years old - Jerusalem, Athens, Thessalonica, Corinth, Alexandria, Antioch… etc. They are even a few years *older *than the Church of Rome. But they did not learn anything about purgatory from the Apostles and they did not and do not teach purgatory.

If it were an ancient teaching in the Church taught by the Apostles you can bet your bottom dollar that you would still find it today in the Orthodox Church. But it’s not there.

How can you sit there and lie about what your church teaches? You certainly do beleive in Purgatory, why else would you pray for the dead? You may not call it Purgatory, but it is the same thing. Here is an article by St. John Maximovitch, an Orthodox Saint, to prove it.

orthodox.net/articles/life-after-death-john-maximovitch.html

There are only two dogmas in the Catholic Church about Purgatory.

1. It exists
2. Prayers help the people there.

The Orthodox would agree with both of these.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

**III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY **

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. [1031](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1031.htm’) The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
[1032](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1032.htm’) This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

None of this contradicts your teachings.

To Be Continued

 

[jimmy]

Now for the Orthodox Catechism

1. But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine Righteousness considers proper.
   christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html

Now this looks like the Catholic belief of Purgatory. If you want to see it for your self, look under Article 7, page 36, under the first stage. Now I ask again, why do you not tell the truth about your teachings? Why do you pray for the dead?

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

Hello,

This thread is about purgatory. A strange concept, not only absent from Scripture, but also from the writings of the earliest church until Augustine, centuries later, who introduced the concept. We can claim that the Church “orally” taught this “doctrine”, but in light of the evidence, or rather, lack thereof, this seems very unlikely.

You can keep on repeating the “mantra” if you’d like, but whether the Church came first is irrelevant. When you realize that beliefs such as purgatory came into the Church well after Pentecost, and there is absolutely no evidence of this teaching in the early church or in written Scripture, the “mantra” is exactly what it is, a redundant sound that means nothing to nobody, but only to those chanting it.

Peace,
CM

I ask you to go back and read the posts I have posted that show the scriptures that support Purgatory.

Here are some early writing about it.

“Abercius by name, I am a disciple of the chaste shepherd…He taught me … faithful writings…These words,I, Abercius, standing by, ordered to be inscribed.In truth, I was in the course of my seventy-second year. Let him who understands and believes this pray for Abercius.”
Inscription of Abercius(A.D. 190),in PAT,I:172

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just."
Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160),in ANF,VIII:490

“Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more–not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

To Be Continued

 

[jimmy]

“[T]hat allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense…Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term ‘adversary’ to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord’s) injunction, while you are in the way with him,'to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?”
Tertullian,A Treatise on the Soul,35(A.D. 210),in ANF,III:216

I think this is enough for now.