Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[pumpqeen]

Reasons given by some pentecostal contacts are:

1 - The bible states that christians are to work towards the upward call during their life on earth in order to obtain redemption on judgement day. So purgatory implies that the work is incomplete and therefore the person is not saved.

2 - He who believes in Him is already saved. (Book of John: For God so loved the world…that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life). Now if this person is saved, why is there a need for purgatory? It implies the salvation grace of God is insufficient and requres the prayers of people still living for the dead.

3 - When the man on the cross died with Jesus, Christ said to him “today, you shall be with me in paradise”. No purgatory mention here. They claim that catholics are therefore introducing an intermediate process which does not exist nor need to exist.

 

[janryboy]

Sacred Scripture says quite clearly 'whosoever comes into God’s presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His “eyes are too pure, to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13)

The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,

The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven ]either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death.

The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions atoning for sins of the dead. They cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him. There is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.

There is more, I could go on but think there is enough evidence above. The Protestants accept doctrines with far less evidence. Why not accept this one?

All I am looking for is a reason why Protestants do not accept all the teachings of Sacred Scripture, but only some of them!

^that explains…evrything about purgatory…thanks Bro. Sixtus!

 

[jim1130]

Protestants object to Pergatory because they believe the moment they put their trust in Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior their slate is wiped 100% clean from beginning to end.

Past, present, and future. Regardless of what they do in the future it’s already payed for in full by what Jesus did on the cross.

And out of love they then lead lives of devotion, obediance etc etc

AlegreFe, confession to god himself in private by them is simply to restore fellowship with him and receive his blessings and friendship.

They believe if they commit mortal sin they will physically die not spiritually.

Also they believe they are already forgiven for all of their sins, they just confess them because they dont want to live sinful lives anymore if that makes sense

But, you see, I am confused. Non-Catholics say that their slate is wiped clean when they put their faith in Christ, but then there is the “cloak of righteousness” that “hides” the sin. So, are they clean? Or is the sin hidden by this cloak of righteousness? You are either clean or not. Just because you put on a clean pair of clothes without first taking a shower does not mean you are clean. Only the outer (i.e. garment) is clean; the inner is not.

With the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I know that I am right again with Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

3 - When the man on the cross died with Jesus, Christ said to him “today, you shall be with me in paradise”. No purgatory mention here. They claim that catholics are therefore introducing an intermediate process which does not exist nor need to exist.

Isn’t it somewhere in one of the Epistles of St. Peter that Jesus actually descended into Hades (thought by some to be the Limbo of the Fathers) on that day, and until the Resurrection? Jesus didn’t actually go to Heaven until later - which could mean one of two things: either “today you will be with Me in Paradise” has a non-literal meaning (since Jesus Himself was not residing permanently in Heaven until 43 days later) or “Paradise” is a reference to the Limbo of the Fathers, and the “good thief” did, indeed, undergo a period of purification before entering Heaven.

 

[pumpqeen]

The re-conciliation for non-catholics is at the point of baptism. They believe that they can still fall out of grace if they commit mortal sins (sins that lead to death). According to Paul, no one is assured of salvation. Philippians 3: 12 “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.”

Janryboy, I hope the Lord is not angry, but I am also exploring the debate. Further to your answers. Putting on the Pentecostal hat, I understand the pentecostal Christians do not have Maccabees. Its something that only we have. So, we can’t quote that to show our point.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 could refer to the loss as having no reward for lack of religious work, but salvation is nonetheless secured because of the person’s faith provided that faith survives the test of fire.

Matt. 12:32 – could mean that the person is not forgiven in this life. And neither would he be forgiven in the next should he speak against the Holy Spirit then. In other words, a person could still sin after entering heaven perhaps?

Luke 12:47-48 – could be similar to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

Luke 16:19-31 – This story does not indicate any instance of compassion, it only shows the desire of the man in suffering to inform his living brothers of the impending punishments. Additionally, it is a parable to show the hardness of the hearts of men.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 – Unfortunately St Paul did not deliberate further on this about “baptizing for the dead”. Neither was it a sacrament instituted by the apostles either. So, we can only assume that it was a one-off instance to show the extensive belief in resurrection.

Phil. 2:10 – They argue that there are 3 realms. Heaven, Earth and the Dark side. We can argue it to be another place, doesn’t cut it.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 – This verse clearly says to have mercy on Onesiphorus’ family. I’m sorry, but I can’t see where it says to have mercy specifically on Onesiphorus himself.

Heb. 12:14 – Yes, without holiness, one cannot see God. But where is the transitory state of purgatory?

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. True – no man is perfect, that’s why Christ came. Believers are made perfect by the blood of Christ and their faith. Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for ighteousness.

These spirits are in purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 – This verse seems to tell us that Christ died for the living and the dead.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. True, but still, there is no indication of a transitory period either. It could mean that God wiped away their tears by granting them entrance into the kingdom. Or it could mean that their tears were wiped just before they enter. Purgatory refers to something more than just the wiping of tears.

I like your expositions. Very enlightening. I have learnt a lot from you Janryboy, thanks. Please continue to give me more examples as I try to learn more on this and brainstorm within my head.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Maccabees is a DEUTEROcanonical book, meaning it is part of a secondary canon even within the Catholic canon. It is of secondary, or lesser authority even within your own Church. .

Not so. The books have full canoncial status, and are placed within the Bible as any other book in the Bible is placed, not in a seperate section of the Bible.
Besides, even if you do not believe that the books are canonical, you can surely acknowledge that these books can serve as historical documents that can give insight into the thinking and practice of Jews during that period of history.

 

[AlegreFe]

But, you see, I am confused. Non-Catholics say that their slate is wiped clean when they put their faith in Christ, but then there is the “cloak of righteousness” that “hides” the sin. So, are they clean? Or is the sin hidden by this cloak of righteousness? You are either clean or not. Just because you put on a clean pair of clothes without first taking a shower does not mean you are clean. Only the outer (i.e. garment) is clean; the inner is not.

With the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I know that I am right again with Christ.

AMEN!! I also explained on how I would not want to enter into Heaven unless I am completely clean. I would hate to enter into heaven “smelling of stench” because I did not take a shower and just put on clean clothes over my dirty body. :nope: yuk

 

[AlegreFe]

Thanks Jim. The verses you mentioned(1cor3;15 &1peter1;7) tell of our works being tested and being put through the fire. It dos,nt effect our salvation.It tells us if our works will recieve rewards.

You are right in the fact that it doesn’t effect our salvation because we are already saved when we are in Purgatory. The matter of purging is being taken care of in Purgatory. Our “works” being burned up is the purging that is going on. We are already saved but only “as through fire.”

15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one
will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but
only as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwells
in you?
17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will
destroy that person; for the temple of God, which
you are, is holy. 1 Cor 3:15-17

IHS:

Matt.12;31 speaks of blasphemy of the Holy spirit,nothing to do with purging. Thanks for your efforts.

The sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this life nor in the next. That means that there is a “next life” in which sins can be forgiven. We all know that it is not Hell. Nothing can be forgiven in Hell, you’re already doomed. So there is a third place where we can end up in and that is purgatory.

32 And whoever speaks a word against the
Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks
against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
either in this age or in the age to come. Matt 12:32

 

[pumpqeen]

Sorry, mis-communication.

32 And whoever speaks a word against the
Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks
against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
either in this age or in the age to come. Matt 12:32

This could also mean that even in heaven, one can be Un-forgiven for speaking against the holy spirit. Remember, even angels can be cast down, this means that spirits too can violate the will of God. Sorry, but we need to qualify in certain terms how we go about substantiating that transitory period we call purgatory and not cast an assumption based on our postulation.

Jmcrae has a point. “today, you shall be with me in paradise”, but we all know Jesus went to Hades for 3 days and nights to suffer for the sins of man. So, what’s the catch?

 

[flameburns623]

Not so. The books have full canonical status, and are placed within the Bible as any other book in the Bible is placed, not in a separate section of the Bible.
Besides, even if you do not believe that the books are canonical, you can surely acknowledge that these books can serve as historical documents that can give insight into the thinking and practice of Jews during that period of history.

It is Roman Catholicism which classes these books as ‘deuterocanonical’. Protestants just call them ‘Apocrypha’. Jerome, in fact, left them out of the first edition of his ‘Vulgate’ and only added them to the third edition under considerable pressure from some of the bishops. Even then, he segregated them from the rest of the Old Testament canon, where they remained until the Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholicism has never classed these books as equal with the rest of the Bible. You have made an error in facts.

 

[MariaG]

It is Roman Catholicism which classes these books as ‘deuterocanonical’. Protestants just call them ‘Apocrypha’…Roman Catholicism has never classed these books as equal with the rest of the Bible. You have made an error in facts.

If one were to read the full article below, we can see that while there has been questions and doubts from people within the Church about the deuterocanicals, it would be completely false to say that the Catholic church “has never classed these books as equal with the rest of the Bible”.

From New Advent Canon of the Old Testament

The Vatican Council (1870)
The great constructive Synod of Trent had put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. By implication it had defined that Bible’s plenary inspiration also. The Vatican Council took occasion of a recent error on inspiration to remove any lingering shadow of uncertainty on this head; it formally ratified the action of Trent and explicitly defined the Divine inspiration of all the books with their parts.

It is also important to note the usage of the term deuterocanonical.

From New Advent Canon of the Old Testament
The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel. It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero.

Also, refering to the term Apocrypha. Now apocrypha WOULD be classed as “less than equal” to the bible since it is not considered inspired. But the definition of WHAT is Apocrypha is divergent for Protestants and Catholics.

From CA Quick Questions (towards very bottom)

**Q: I recently came across a Catholic book which referred to the Apocrypha. I thought only Protestants used this expression. Is there a legitimate Catholic use? **

A: The Apocrypha is made up of works which some have thought to be inspired, but which aren’t. Protestants include in the Apocrypha the seven extra books of the Old Testament accepted by Catholics, but excluded from the Protestant canon. These are Judith, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Catholics regard these books as inspired and canonical. For us, they’re part of the Old Testament. Since the time of Sixtus of Siena (1528-1569) they’ve been called deuterocanonical books. Catholics also speak of the Apocrypha, but don’t consider the deuterocanonical books as part of it.

The Apocrypha is divided into Old Testament and New Testament works. The Old Testament Apocrypha includes writings such as 3 Maccabees, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Book of Enoch. The New Testament Apocrypha contains works such as the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter, as well as various pseudepigraphical epistles and apocalypses.

Most of these books have little or no historical value. Since they’re not inspired, apocryphal books aren’t theologically pertinent, except insofar as they reveal popular Jewish or early Christian beliefs or heresies…

 

[jim1130]

"valiant Lucy:

Not so. The books have full canonical status, and are placed within the Bible as any other book in the Bible is placed, not in a separate section of the Bible.
Besides, even if you do not believe that the books are canonical, you can surely acknowledge that these books can serve as historical documents that can give insight into the thinking and practice of Jews during that period of history.

It is Roman Catholicism which classes these books as ‘deuterocanonical’. Protestants just call them ‘Apocrypha’. Jerome, in fact, left them out of the first edition of his ‘Vulgate’ and only added them to the third edition under considerable pressure from some of the bishops. Even then, he segregated them from the rest of the Old Testament canon, where they remained until the Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholicism has never classed these books as equal with the rest of the Bible. You have made an error in facts.

“The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture” by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/francisdesales.html

Let St. Frances de Sales answer the concerns of flameburn623:

1. Yes, but the whole of the Church does not receive them, you say. Of what Church are you speaking? Unquestionably the Catholic, which is the true Church, receives them, as S. Augustine has just now borne witness to you, and he repeats it, citing the Council of Carthage. The Council in Trullo the 6th General, that of Florence, and a hundred ancient authors are thereto. I name S. Jerome, who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was received in the first Council [of Nice]. Perhaps you would say that of old time some Catholics doubted of their authority. This is clear from the division which I have made above. But does their doubt then make it impossible for their successors to come to a conclusion? Are we to say that if once cannot decide at the very first glance one must always remain waverign, uncertain, and irresolute? Was ther enot for some time an uncertainty about the Apocalypse and Esther? You would not dare to deny it: my witnesses for Esther are too sound, S. Athanasius (In Synopsi) and S. Gregory Nazainzen (In carm. de lib. sac.) : for the Apocalypse, the Council of Laodicea: and yet you receive them. Either receive them all, since they are in equal position, or receive none, on the same ground. But in God’s name what humour takes you that you here bring forward the Church, whose authority you hold to be a hundred times more uncertain than these books themselves, and which you say to have been erring, inconstant,- yea apocryphal, if apocryphal means hidden? You only prize it to despise it, and to make it appear inconstant, now recognizing, now rejecting these books.

But there is a great difference between doubting whether a thing is to be accepted and rejecting it. Doubt does not hinder a subsequent resolution, indeed it is its preliminary stage. To reject presupposes a decision. Inconstancy does not consist in changing a doubt into resolution, but in changing from resolution to doubt. It is not instability to become settled after wavering, but to waver after being settled. The Church then, having for a time left these books in doubt, at length has received them with authentic decision, and you wish that from this resolution she should return into doubt. It belongs to heresy and not to the Church thus to advance from bad to worse. But of this elsewhere.

1. As for S. Jerome whom you allege, this is not to the purpose, since in his time the Church had not yet come to the resolution which she has come to since, as to the placing of these books on the canon, except that of Judith.
2. And the canon Sancta Romana, which is of Gelasius I.- I think you have taken it by guess, for it is entirely agaisnt you; because, while censuring the apocryphal books, it does not name one of these which we receive, but on the contrary witnesses that Tobias and the Macchabees were publicly received in the Church.

(con’t)

 

[jim1130]

(con’t)
"valiant Lucy:

Not so. The books have full canonical status, and are placed within the Bible as any other book in the Bible is placed, not in a separate section of the Bible.

Besides, even if you do not believe that the books are canonical, you can surely acknowledge that these books can serve as historical documents that can give insight into the thinking and practice of Jews during that period of history.

It is Roman Catholicism which classes these books as ‘deuterocanonical’. Protestants just call them ‘Apocrypha’. Jerome, in fact, left them out of the first edition of his ‘Vulgate’ and only added them to the third edition under considerable pressure from some of the bishops. Even then, he segregated them from the rest of the Old Testament canon, where they remained until the Protestant Reformation. Roman Catholicism has never classed these books as equal with the rest of the Bible. You have made an error in facts.

“The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture” by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/francisdesales.html

Let St. Frances de Sales answer the concerns of flameburn623:

1. S. Jerome, you say, could not find the Second in Hebrew; and although it is true that it is only as it were a letter which Israel sent to their Jewish brethen who were then out of Judea, and although it is written in the best known and most general language of those times, does it thence follow that it is not worthy to be received? The Egyptians used the Greek language much more than the Hebrew, as Ptolemy clearly showed when he procured the version of the Seventy. This is why this Second book of Machabees, which was like an epistle or commentary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew.
2. It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free-will, the honouring of relics, and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in the Books of Machabees, in Ecclesiasticus, and in other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. For God’s sake take care that your judgment does not deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of faith? Why do you not rather censure your fancies which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, than censure these books which have been received for so long a time because they do not jump with your humour? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it; why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?

(5.) Then what reason is there that the Holy Spirit should give inspirations as to what every one must believe to nobodies, to Luther, to Calvin, they having abandoned without any such inspiration the Councils and the entire Church. We do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had a thousand times revealed a thing to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity in question. But we see nothing of this among your reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts; an absurdity.

 

[flameburns623]

Y’all are going to make me haul out my Catholic New American Bible, I see. Before I do that, take a little time to check some of the notes in your own copies of the NAB. (You DO have a personal copy of the Catholic Bible, I trust???) Take note that the footnotes and commentary caution the reader repeatedly that information in the Deuterocanonicals is deemed unreliable and to be treated with considerable reserve. Stories about dragons, for example, might best be taken as allegorical.

 

[jmcrae]

Y’all are going to make me haul out my Catholic New American Bible, I see. Before I do that, take a little time to check some of the notes in your own copies of the NAB. (You DO have a personal copy of the Catholic Bible, I trust???) Take note that the footnotes and commentary caution the reader repeatedly that information in the Deuterocanonicals is deemed unreliable and to be treated with considerable reserve. Stories about dragons, for example, might best be taken as allegorical.

What version of the NAB are you using?

Neither of mine (I have the St. Joseph and the Catholic World Press editions next to me here on the desk) even so much as identify which books are considered “Deuterocanonical,” let alone give any warnings that I can find.

Indeed, after a brief glance, I see that the unknown author of the Book of Tobit is described as “inspired,” and that the original title of the Book of Sirach, Liber Ecclesiasticus (meaning “Church Book”), was so called due to the extensive use made of this book in the moral training of the children of the faithful and the catechumens.

 

[MariaG]

Y’all are going to make me haul out my Catholic New American Bible, I see. Before I do that, take a little time to check some of the notes in your own copies of the NAB. (You DO have a personal copy of the Catholic Bible, I trust???) Take note that the footnotes and commentary caution the reader repeatedly that information in the Deuterocanonicals is deemed unreliable and to be treated with considerable reserve. Stories about dragons, for example, might best be taken as allegorical.

We cite official Church documents and well known saints and you are trying to rebut it with footnotes and commentary from a bible?

Even though something like that is “supposed” to conform to Catholic teachings, the commentary and footnotes are not an infallible source.

But where exactly in the NAB does it say that caution should be used since the information is unreliable?

NAB

 

[flameburns623]

We cite official Church documents and well known saints and you are trying to rebut it with footnotes and commentary from a bible?

Even though something like that is “supposed” to conform to Catholic teachings, the commentary and footnotes are not an infallible source.

Can you admit you were wrong?

I have been wrong on this forum in the past and will be in the future. I am well-informed about some aspects of Roman Catholicism, but my knowledge is not enclyclopedic. In this particular case I believe it is you and Jmcrae who have misapprehended the longstanding distinctions which Roman Catholics have made between the ‘standard’ Old Testament books accepted by all, and those books differentiated from the collection as ‘deuterocanonical’. This is understandable, since you wish to use one passing reference to bolster your belief in purgatory. You seem unwilling to recognise the fatal flaw in this. The deuteros contain glaring factual and historical errors, are universally acknowledged to be of a much poorer literary quality than the accepted canon, and are theologically questionable on a number of grounds even in light of RCC theology. The best article on this, sadly, is a Protestant one but here’s a link:

apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle4.htm

I just don’t think you have things quite right within the teaching of your own Church when you argue for the Deuteros as having equal footing with the rest of the OT. If I am mistaken, so be it, and please accept my apologies. It is an issue somewhat peripheral to the purpose of this thread in any case. We are here exploring why Protestants do not accept the doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[MariaG]

I do read the following:

from preface

The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.”

Introduction to 1 Maccabees

The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., have nevertheless always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired, on the basis of apostolic tradition.

introduction to Sirach

Though not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., nor accepted by Protestants, the Book of Sirach has always been recognized by the Catholic Church as divinely inspired and canonical. The Foreword, though not inspired, is placed in the Bible because of its antiquity and importance.

from introduction to Daniel

The added episodes of Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon, found only in the Greek version, are edifying short stories with a didactic purpose.

 

[MariaG]

I do read the following in the NAB online version.

from preface

The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.”

Introduction to 1 Maccabees

The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., have nevertheless always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired, on the basis of apostolic tradition.

introduction to Sirach

Though not included in the Hebrew Bible after the first century A.D., nor accepted by Protestants, the Book of Sirach has always been recognized by the Catholic Church as divinely inspired and canonical. The Foreword, though not inspired, is placed in the Bible because of its antiquity and importance.

 

[MariaG]

I have been wrong on this forum in the past and will be in the future. I am well-informed about some aspects of Roman Catholicism, but my knowledge is not enclyclopedic. In this particular case I believe it is you and Jmcrae who have misapprehended the longstanding distinctions which Roman Catholics have made between the ‘standard’ Old Testament books accepted by all, and those books differentiated from the collection as ‘deuterocanonical’. This is understandable, since you wish to use one passing reference to bolster your belief in purgatory. You seem unwilling to recognise the fatal flaw in this. The deuteros contain glaring factual and historical errors, are universally acknowledged to be of a much poorer literary quality than the accepted canon, and are theologically questionable on a number of grounds even in light of RCC theology. The best article on this, sadly, is a Protestant one but here’s a link:

apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle4.htm

I just don’t think you have things quite right within the teaching of your own Church when you argue for the Deuteros as having equal footing with the rest of the OT. If I am mistaken, so be it, and please accept my apologies. It is an issue somewhat peripheral to the purpose of this thread in any case. We are here exploring why Protestants do not accept the doctrine of Purgatory.

I am glad to hear you say so. Although, I did go back and edit out that question from my original post, since I felt it did nothing to help further conversation and although not meant in such a manner, on a second reading, I felt it could be miscontrued as to the “tone” I meant.

It has long been acknowledged by Catholics that inspired scripture does not neccessarily mean historically accurate nor does it neccessarily mean it will be of superior literary value. But inspired scripture WILL be of superior spiritual value.

And your article goes on to point out things that the Catholic Church readily acknowledges, but as I already stated, Inspired does not neccessarily mean literarilly inspired.

That the Protestant Churches choose to change the definition of what can and cannot be inspired scripture does not change that the Catholic Church does not treat “deuterocanonical” books as less than inspired or unreliable as concerns the moral and spiritual lessons that can be learned from them, while readily acknowledging that the “history” cannot be confirmed or may in fact be incorrect.

God Bless,
Maria