Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory?

[benhur]

I read a lot about cleansing, needing to be pure to be able to enter. I can only equate such perfect cleansing with the efficacy of God shedding his own blood for me, and not "suffering’ on my part.

So His white raiment for me is effective enough to cleanse mortal sin but not an unconfessed venial sin? Consequences are consequences and have nothing to do with cleansing (maturing maybe, but not being “righteous in Christ”). Seems a definite misunderstanding of our two natures as a born again believer.

Paul says that to be absent from body is to be present with the Lord. We are also seated in heavenly places *now.
*
Most references to a "purging’’ have nothing to do with when we die but later when our works are judged, and before we are rewarded and placed in His about to reign kingdom (after our resurrection).

 

[benhur]

Question, can one do penance for another ? That is what equate prayers and works offered up to those in purgatory as being.(at least as has been practiced by some ).

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s my understanding that the Catholics and Orthodox actually both do believe in Purgatory (from the Catholic understanding)…

No. Please see the book:“Why Do We Reject Purgatory?” in which Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III presents many theological and biblical arguments against Purgatory.

 

[phil19034]

I read a lot about cleansing, needing to be pure to be able to enter. I can only equate such perfect cleansing with the efficacy of God shedding his own blood for me, and not "suffering’ on my part.

So His white raiment for me is effective enough to cleanse mortal sin but not an unconfessed venial sin? Consequences are consequences and have nothing to do with cleansing (maturing maybe, but not being “righteous in Christ”). Seems a definite misunderstanding of our two natures as a born again believer.

Paul says that to be absent from body is to be present with the Lord. We are also seated in heavenly places *now.
*
Most references to a "purging’’ have nothing to do with when we die but later when our works are judged, and before we are rewarded and placed in His about to reign kingdom (after our resurrection).

Ben - Jesus suffered so that the Gates of Heaven would be opened to the human race. He did not suffer so every single human could enter heaven (though He wishes it).

I think it’s theologically wrong to think of Purgatory as a punishment. It is not, it is Divine Mercy. Purgatory allows we sinners, who are not worthy of Heaven a way in. God burns away our sins through the Fire of His Love and our souls become glorified and pure. We suffer in purgatory because we are finally 100% exposed to God’s love for us and we realize and see how we didn’t love him enough. We see our mistakes and suffer because we realize just truly how much we didn’t live up to His love for us and we “suffer” because we realize just how much God loves us and how much we took it for granted.

Where this becomes confused by non-Catholics (and some Catholics) is in regards to Catholic Life. We focus on the “suffering part” and less on the “mercy part” because we want people to focus on trying to get to heaven, not attempting to do the bare minimum to get into Purgatory. If we described Purgatory as a great place were we all want to go, then people would be less inclined to live holy, saintly lives here on earth.

I pray this makes sense.

God Bless.

 

[phil19034]

No. Please see the book:“Why Do We Reject Purgatory?” in which Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III presents many theological and biblical arguments against Purgatory.

Tom - I said that the Orthodox understanding of the purification process does not conflict with the Catholic understanding .

I totally understand that the Orthodox have issues with our descriptions of Purgatory.

We also have to remember that Pope Shenouda III was the first Coptic Pope to meet with the Pope of Rome in over 1500 years. So it will take some time before the Catholics and Coptic Bishops can clear their “misunderstandings.”

The biggest problem is that people think Purgatory is punishment. It is not. It is a form of Divine Mercy.

God Bless

 

[Tomdstone]

I think it’s theologically wrong to think of Purgatory as a punishment.

Not true according to the booklet on the EWTN website entitled: Read ME or Rue It:
Purgatory “is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after
death and in which they suffer the intensest pain…St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says that the fire of Purgatory is equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this
Earth!..The fire of Purgatory, on the contrary, **was made by the Justice of God
to punish and purify us **and is, therefore, incomparably more severe.”
This book is published with ecclesiastical approval:
"APPROVAL OF HIS EMINENCE THE CARDINAL PATRIARCH OF LISBON

Cardinal’s Palace, Lisbon March 4, 1936

We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read
Me or Rue It …"
ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/READRUE.TXT

 

[phil19034]

Not true according to the booklet on the EWTN website entitled: Read ME or Rue It:
Purgatory “is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after
death and in which they suffer the intensest pain…St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says that the fire of Purgatory is equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this
Earth!..The fire of Purgatory, on the contrary, **was made by the Justice of God
to punish and purify us **and is, therefore, incomparably more severe.”
This book is published with ecclesiastical approval:
"APPROVAL OF HIS EMINENCE THE CARDINAL PATRIARCH OF LISBON

Cardinal’s Palace, Lisbon March 4, 1936

We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read
Me or Rue It …"
ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/READRUE.TXT

Tom,
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s St. Thomas Aquinas’s description, not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. That’s also ETWN pamphlet and the Patriarch of Lisbon’s approval. While I respect all of them, none of them are the Magisterium.

It’s the descriptions of Purgatory that are the problem. Historically, Catholics like to describe purgatory is scary terms or as punishment so people would not be content settling for purgatory.

We also have to keep in mind that that many individual priests, Bishops and laity in the Catholic Church often suffered from the Jansenism Heresy (or Jansenism like heretical beliefs), which rejects or forgets about God’s Divine Mercy.

Those descriptions of Purgatory are NOT infallible. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. Many descriptions of Purgatory are from private revelation. They are not required belief. However, the process of purification is Biblical.

Again, the Deposit of Faith doesn’t say whether Purgatory is a place or process… it only teaches that it’s real.

Finally, as I stated above, Catholics have taught that Purgatory is a place of suffering or temporary punishment because they want people to live holy, saintly lives. We don’t want people attempting to do the bare minimum to get into Heaven.

The true differences are in how the purification process it’s explained, not that God’s process doesn’t exist.

 

[JonNC]

Ben - Jesus suffered so that the Gates of Heaven would be opened to the human race. He did not suffer so every single human could enter heaven (though He wishes it).

I think it’s theologically wrong to think of Purgatory as a punishment. It is not, it is Divine Mercy. Purgatory allows we sinners, who are not worthy of Heaven a way in. God burns away our sins through the Fire of His Love and our souls become glorified and pure. We suffer in purgatory because we are finally 100% exposed to God’s love for us and we realize and see how we didn’t love him enough. We see our mistakes and suffer because we realize just truly how much we didn’t live up to His love for us and we “suffer” because we realize just how much God loves us and how much we took it for granted.

Where this becomes confused by non-Catholics (and some Catholics) is in regards to Catholic Life. We focus on the “suffering part” and less on the “mercy part” because we want people to focus on trying to get to heaven, not attempting to do the bare minimum to get into Purgatory. If we described Purgatory as a great place were we all want to go, then people would be less inclined to live holy, saintly lives here on earth.

I pray this makes sense.

God Bless.

Connected to your point, from the document I linked above:

1. As Ratzinger stated: “Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather is it the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.”

Jon

 

[zz912]

Question, can one do penance for another ? That is what equate prayers and works offered up to those in purgatory as being.(at least as has been practiced by some ).

Yes.

1 John 5:14 And this is the boldness we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. ** 16 If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. **There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.

 

[zz912]

I read a lot about cleansing, needing to be pure to be able to enter. I can only equate such perfect cleansing with the efficacy of God shedding his own blood for me, and not "suffering’ on my part.

Then why does St. Paul say this?

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church

So His white raiment for me is effective enough to cleanse mortal sin but not an unconfessed venial sin? Consequences are consequences and have nothing to do with cleansing (maturing maybe, but not being “righteous in Christ”). Seems a definite misunderstanding of our two natures as a born again believer.

If you sin after receiving your white raiment, then God’s grace through the shedding of His Blood needs to be applied to you again to wash away the stain you have made. At your baptism you were washed completely free. And if you died right then, you would go straight to heaven. But since that time, you’ve probably sullied your baptismal raiment, and need it cleaned by Jesus.

Paul says that to be absent from body is to be present with the Lord. We are also seated in heavenly places *now. *

Not quite. Here’s what he actually says:

2 Cor 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Note, when we are in our bodies, we definitely are absent from the Lord. But just because we are absent the bodies doesn’t mean we automatically are present with Him. Those are damned are NOT present with Him.

You are right about one thing. When we are at Mass, we are participating in the one liturgy that is eternally being celebrated in Heaven. Heaven comes directly to us in the Eucharist.

Most references to a "purging’’ have nothing to do with when we die but later when our works are judged, and before we are rewarded and placed in His about to reign kingdom (after our resurrection).

So you’re saying that after we die, there is a judgment given to us, and our good works are rewarded and our bad works are punished before we enter into Heaven. How is this different from Purgatory?

 

[pablope]

I read a lot about cleansing, needing to be pure to be able to enter. I can only equate such perfect cleansing with the efficacy of God shedding his own blood for me, and not "suffering’ on my part.

So His white raiment for me is effective enough to cleanse mortal sin but not an unconfessed venial sin? Consequences are consequences and have nothing to do with cleansing (maturing maybe, but not being “righteous in Christ”). Seems a definite misunderstanding of our two natures as a born again believer.

 

[Tomdstone]

Those descriptions of Purgatory are NOT infallible. They are not part of the Deposit of Faith. .

My understanding is that what a Cardinal of the Catholic Church teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Although it is not infallible, nevertheless, it is authoritative and requires the religious submission of intellect and will.This is according to the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

 

[eazyduzit]

Ben…as the following verses say…we have to do our part in the cleansing too:

 

[pablope]

pablope;13170461:

From Jn15:3 “Now ye are made clean through the words I have spoken unto you” .
Let’s not be overly selective in proof texts.

Well…you did it too…selectively clinging to Jn15:3, didn’t you?

So the Bible verses contradict each other? Which is true…Jn 15:3 by itself, or you consider all the passages too?

Does the word make you clean by itself?

 

[phil19034]

My understanding is that what a Cardinal of the Catholic Church teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Although it is not infallible, nevertheless, it is authoritative and requires the religious submission of intellect and will.This is according to the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

No. Because if a bishop taught heresy, it would not bind the faithful. The bishop must team in concert with the faith. The Magisterium does not teach what Purgatory looks or feels like. That is private revelation or theological theory. Not infallible teaching. The only infallible teaching is that their is a purification process that God uses, which we humans call purgatory.

 

[phil19034]

My understanding is that what a Cardinal of the Catholic Church teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Although it is not infallible, nevertheless, it is authoritative and requires the religious submission of intellect and will.This is according to the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Furthermore, a Cardinal has no special powers that other Bishops do not (other than being the Bishops that are allowed to vote for the Pope)

 

[Tomdstone]

No. Because if a bishop taught heresy, it would not bind the faithful. The bishop must team in concert with the faith. The Magisterium does not teach what Purgatory looks or feels like. That is private revelation or theological theory. Not infallible teaching. The only infallible teaching is that their is a purification process that God uses, which we humans call purgatory.

No one said that the teaching of a bishop was infallible. As I read canon 753, to me it says that a bishop, whether he teaches individually, or joined together with other bishops, is an authentic teacher and instructor of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; and that the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
The teaching of your bishop is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Do you deny this? Do you reject canon 753 ?

 

[Tomdstone]

No. Because if a bishop taught heresy, it would not bind the faithful. The bishop must team in concert with the faith. The Magisterium does not teach what Purgatory looks or feels like. That is private revelation or theological theory. Not infallible teaching. The only infallible teaching is that their is a purification process that God uses, which we humans call purgatory.

No one said that when a bishop teaches individually, he teaches infallibly. But, nevertheless, according to canon 753 Catholics are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
According to Ronald L. Conte Jr.:
"The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is the most common way that the spiritual teaching authority of the Church is expressed. Each Bishop has the ability and authority to teach under the Ordinary Magisterium, by virtue of his ordination to the Episcopate, even if he is not the head of a diocese. The Episcopal degree of Ordination of necessity and by its very nature confers on each and every Bishop the right and duty to teach the faithful from the truths of Tradition and Scripture, in fellowship with the other Bishops and under the authority, leadership, and guidance of the Pope. When any Bishops teaches the Faith by himself, that is, under his own proper authority as a Bishop (yet while not participating in a Council or the Universal Magisterium), his teachings fall under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, unless they directly contradict the infallible teachings of the Magisterium, or unless the Bishop is no longer in communion with the other Bishops and the Pope.

Some claim that a Bishop cannot teach under the Magisterium at all, except when teaching one and the same doctrine in union with all the Bishops of the world and the Pope. **This claim is heretical. **The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, just as the Pope is the successor of Peter, the leader of the Apostles. In this modern age of easy worldwide communication, the faithful can easily know what numerous Bishops teach throughout the world. And this has led some Catholics to all but abandon the teaching authority of individual Bishops. Yet throughout most of the history of the Church, this was not the case. The faithful then relied on the local Bishop in authority over their diocese as a reliable source of truth and for guidance in the Faith. Those who reject the teaching authority of local individual Bishops are rejecting true Apostles, who have been sent by Christ, and about whom Scripture says: “Whoever receives you, receives me. And whoever receives me, receives him who sent me.” (Mt 10:40)."
catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm
Here is a link to a list of books by Ronald L. Conte, Jr.
catholicplanet.com/books.htm

 

[phil19034]

No one said that when a bishop teaches individually, he teaches infallibly. But, nevertheless, according to canon 753 Catholics are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
According to Ronald L. Conte Jr.:
"The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is the most common way that the spiritual teaching authority of the Church is expressed. Each Bishop has the ability and authority to teach under the Ordinary Magisterium, by virtue of his ordination to the Episcopate, even if he is not the head of a diocese. The Episcopal degree of Ordination of necessity and by its very nature confers on each and every Bishop the right and duty to teach the faithful from the truths of Tradition and Scripture, in fellowship with the other Bishops and under the authority, leadership, and guidance of the Pope. When any Bishops teaches the Faith by himself, that is, under his own proper authority as a Bishop (yet while not participating in a Council or the Universal Magisterium), his teachings fall under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, unless they directly contradict the infallible teachings of the Magisterium, or unless the Bishop is no longer in communion with the other Bishops and the Pope.

Some claim that a Bishop cannot teach under the Magisterium at all, except when teaching one and the same doctrine in union with all the Bishops of the world and the Pope. **This claim is heretical. **The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, just as the Pope is the successor of Peter, the leader of the Apostles. In this modern age of easy worldwide communication, the faithful can easily know what numerous Bishops teach throughout the world. And this has led some Catholics to all but abandon the teaching authority of individual Bishops. Yet throughout most of the history of the Church, this was not the case. The faithful then relied on the local Bishop in authority over their diocese as a reliable source of truth and for guidance in the Faith. Those who reject the teaching authority of local individual Bishops are rejecting true Apostles, who have been sent by Christ, and about whom Scripture says: “Whoever receives you, receives me. And whoever receives me, receives him who sent me.” (Mt 10:40)."
catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm
Here is a link to a list of books by Ronald L. Conte, Jr.
catholicplanet.com/books.htm

Tom - you and I are not talking about the same things here.

I’m tried… But I will leave you with this. If my Archbishop was to say, we know what Puratory is like because these saints said this and because Our Lady says this… It would not be binding.

Would I have to accept what he says and consider it? Yes. Would I have to give him the benefit the doubt, yes. Would I have to respect what his says as a successor of the faith, yes. Can I publicly denounce his teaching, no.

However, with that said… sometimes theological theories become very popular and are taught by priests and bishops. One example of a theological theory that became very popular and was taught was limbo. Limbo was never an official teaching of the Magisterium, but it was taught by many bishops and priests. It was even in local catechisms, etc.

My point is this: the descriptions of purgatory used by Bishops of the past are based on private revelations and theological theory. Not the Deposit of the Faith. As a previous poster posted, Pope Benedict XVI’s descriptions of purgatory are much different than St Thomas Aquinas and the Cardinal you quoted.

The point is, the Orthodox view of purification does not conflict with the catholic understanding of purgatory. It might conflict with some theological theories, but not with the Deposit of Faith.

God Bless

 

[Tomdstone]

One example of a theological theory that became very popular and was taught was limbo. Limbo was never an official teaching of the Magisterium, but it was taught by many bishops and priests.

I think that Limbo was taught. It was in the Baltimore catechism, at least one of the editions in the last part of the catechism where they give definitions of terms. And Pope Pius VI condemned any doctrine which rejects the idea of a limbo for infants. The Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, was issued in 1794 by Pope Pius VI, condemning a series of errors as heretical or false, rash and injurious:.
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.”
Also Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are “excluded from Beatific Vision.”
And Pope Martin V and the Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415, in condemning the teachings of John Wyclif declared that “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. - Condemned.”