Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[Montalban]

Montalban:

We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by pardoning man’s sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him
by sin (see INCARNATION).
newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

And this implies?

It doesn’t ‘imply’; but states “God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him”

God was injured

If you had read a little further, you would have also read this part…

How does that negate that God needs to be satisfied?

 

[Montalban]

From the Summa Theologica
“In like manner he who is sorry for having offended God, implicitly grieves for his different sins in different ways, according as by them he offended God more or less.”
newadvent.org/summa/5003.htm

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It doesn’t ‘imply’; but states “God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him”

God was injured.

Yes. God was not only injured on the cross. He died on the cross. Our sins against God amounted to deicide-- the murder of God.
Colossians 1:19-21:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I don’t see the problem with this from a theological perspective. As far as I understand, both Catholic theology and the various protestant theologies agree with this simple truth-- God was pleased to have his Son die on the cross in order to make peace through his blood which was shed for the remisison of our sins.

Montalban:

How does that negate that God needs to be satisfied?

What’s wrong with saying that Jesus bore the sins of all humanity on the cross?

I guess I’m not really understanding your point here.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

From the Summa Theologica
“In like manner he who is sorry for having offended God, implicitly grieves for his different sins in different ways, according as by them he offended God more or less.”
newadvent.org/summa/5003.htm

And this means?

Like I said before, unless you understand that, from the Catholic perspective, grace is God’s life within you, you are not going to understand what’s being said here.

Unless you understand that grace is God’s life within you, you’re going to read this as if we Catholics think we can earn our way into heaven-- and that not what Catholicism is teaching.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, it means God is not satisfied. That’s why such terms are used. It says “God requires satisfaction…”

Yes. Like I said before, as far as I understand, both Catholic theology and the various protestant theologies agree with this simple truth-- God was pleased to have his Son die on the cross in order to make peace through his blood which was shed for the remisison of our sins.

Do the Orthodox not believe this to be true as well?

When Jesus died on the cross, we beleive that this was the singular event by which he reached out to all of humanity and graced all people who would be saved in him-- past, present, and future.

Montalban:

Then God needs to punish people

Is God punishing people in Romans 8:17, Hebrews 2:9-10, 1 Peter 4:13, or 1 Peter 5:10?

As I said before, there is absolutely nothing blasphemous about people sharing in Christ’s sufferings so that we may glorify God.

For example…
Romans 8:17:

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

These people are not being punished, are they?

And again…
Hebrews 2:9-10:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Was Jesus being punished on the cross? Are the many sons being brought to glory being punished?

And again…
1 Peter 4:13:

But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.

Are we being punished when we participate in the sufferings of Christ?

Echoing Hebrews 2:10 above, but applied strictly to Christians…
1 Peter 5:10:

And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

Are these people called to the eternal glory in Christ suffering for a little while because they are being punished?

What about Job?

Was Job being punished or was he glorifying God through his suffering?

How about the apostles here in Acts 5:41?

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.

Montalban:

You do this, to satisfy God.

No. We don’t.

As I said before, God was pleased to have his Son die on the cross in order to make peace through his blood which was shed for the remisison of our sins.

When we suffer in this way, whether in life or in death, God does this through us via his shed blood on the cross so that we might rejoice in our ability to share in the suffering of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

All these things are done by Christ through us as he prepares us for our entry into heaven in order to experience his beautific vision.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Continued

Montalban:

The emotive appeal “You just don’t understand us” doesn’t work.

Apparently not. But that fact that it’s not working on you doesn’t make this truth any less real. You really don’t understand what we’re trying to explain to you.

Montalban:

I don’t wish to speak for all Protestants; they in fact also believe God needs to be satisfied. But for them, this is done through a kind of one-off payment. For you guys, you need to continually pay off your debts to a God that needs this.

No. The debt has been paid in full on the cross. From God’s perspective, it is finished.

For our own human and finite perspective, however, we have not experienced the fullness of his forgiveness yet.

We have not experienced the full removal of the the effects of sin for one thing. In fact, we won’t be able to experience this until we enter into heaven in order to experience his beautific vision.

Furthermore, our future sins have not even been committed yet. We haven’t even experienced these things yet, let alone, from our human perspective, experienced the fullness of God’s forgiveness for these future sins.

It’s true that from God’s perspective, we’ve already gone through these trials and tribulations. In other words, God has already applied the shed blood of Christ throughout all human history-- past, present, and future. So, in God’s eyes, from the perspective of eternity, we all already forgiven through the blood shed on the cross.

But from our own human perspective, we have not experienced the fullness of Christ’s shed blood cleansing us from our sins yet. This is why Paul says in Colossians 1:24…

Now I rejoice in what was suffered 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.

This passage doesn’t mean thay Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was in any way lacking-- because Christ’s sacrifice was fully sufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

On the contrary, from man’s perspective, this passage means that we have yet to experience the fullness of how Christ’s afflictions, his blood shed on the cross, will fully and completely purify our souls.

Montalban:

I’m not here to defend Protestant’s views.

Which is what Protestants believe

Fine. Then let’s look at it from the Catholic/Orthodox perspectives.

Montalban:

This is still not addressing the fact you have a God that needs some kind of legalistic framework by which you sin, your sins are weighed up, and He punishes you until He is satisfied.

No. We’re talking about the Word becoming flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”

The reason why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man, was so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.

Certainly you’re familar with St. Athanasius’ thoughts, right?

Was St. Athanasius blaspheming God when he said, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”?

Although a sentence like this could be seriously misunderstood, when one looks at it in the proper context, it is easy to see what St. Athanasius implied.

Again, was St. Athanasius blashpeming God when he said, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”?

No. He was talking about how Christ was incarnated so that he might indwell all people in order to draw them into God and transfigure them into the likeness of his divine son. And Christ accomplished through his shed blood on the cross.
Ephesians 2:13:

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Indeed, if Christ had not died and been ressurected, then even his incarnation would not have saved us.
1 Corinthians 15:14:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Saying that Christ manifest within us, moving us to partake in his sufferings in order to be purified by his blood and glorify his name is no more blasphemous than St. Athanasius saying “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”.

Montalban:

This supposes that God simply won’t forgive right away all sins that you’ve committed, upon genuine request that they be forgiven. It supposes God still needs to be ‘satisfied’.

Not if you’re understanding what we’re saying.

Nothing impure will ever enter God’s presence, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, just as Revelation 21:27 says.

Therefore, even though we are already forgiven, God will cleanse us through his blood prior to entering into heaven so that we may to experience his beautific vision. Indeed, even though we suffer, we will still rejoice as God refines us like gold in preparation for our entry into heaven so that we may to experience his beautific vision.

That process is called purgatory. And it’s what we’ve been teaching all along.

 

[apophasis]

Stop right there. I’ve never said that purgatory was always taught to be a pleasant experience. In fact, we’ve been saying the opposite of this-- it is only the most rare cases that one is purified completely in this life prior to their death and individual judgement.

As we’ve said repeatedly, purgatory is the blood of Christ being appplied to the soul in order to purify it, just as a refiner refines impurities from gold for example. The blood of Christ really destroys the sins in our soul, a truly painful process, purifiying the soul through the blood of Christ in a way similar to how fire is used by a refiner to purify gold.

Look here…

And here…

And here…

(1) There are absolutely no Scriptures that speak to men being cleansed of sins either by Christ’s blood or fire AFTER death. But it is taught that one’s sins are cleansed by Christ’s blood in this life through faith in Him. (2) NONE of the O.T. verses you quoted teach Purgatory, but refer to God’s judgment and discipline of national Israel with a view to bring that nation back to Him. Like I said, don’t just give me Scriptural passages that use the word “fire.”

Despite claims to the contrary, there is absolutely nothing blasphemous about people sharing in Christ’s sufferings so that we may glorify God.

True. But that’s not what Purgatory is about.

**We believe that the blood of Christ makes us perfectly clean for heaven through purgatory the moment we die.**And there is absolutely no divine revelation to back up YOUR belief.

You believe that the blood of Christ makes you perfectly clean for heaven through faith the moment you believe.

Which is backed up by Apostolic teaching in the Scriptures.

Now you also said that our view is a blasphemous one and that your view is the Scriptural one.

In both cases, the blood of Christ is doing the cleansing.

But your view is fantasy having no Divine support and I’m having a hard time finding in your catechism where it actually states that it’s the blood Christ that does the cleansing of sins in Purgatory. Please give me the paragraph number.

But if the timing of the cleansing via the blood of Christ is believed to be the only difference

between our views, why is our view a blasphemous one and your view a Scriptural one?Because I have yet to find in your catechism where it is ACTUALLY stated that it is the blood of Christ that ACTUALLY does the cleansing in Purgatory. Everywhere I read it’s fire.

If it’s truly the blood of Chirst’s cross that cleanses in Purgatory then there should be no pain involved, no fearful experience to dread, and no one in the past should have paid money to the church in order to get out of that “process” early, either for himself or a loved one. Yet they did. Why???

How is it that the blood of Christ (and not fire) cleanses a man of sins in Purgatory, but has no power to cleanse him here on earth? You say that he has not confessed them. But I read of no confessing of sins going on in Purgatory. Only of men, themselves, paying the price of “temporal punishments” through their own suffering . This speaks nothing to the blood of Christ cleansing anyone there. It is truly blasphemous.
​

​

 

[apophasis]

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.

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 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."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 or 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."Note here that: (1) your catechism specifically teaches a “cleansing/purifying fire” in Purgatory (2) There is absolutely no mention of the blood of Christ actually doing the cleansing there, only “fire.” (3) Your catechism refences the passage that says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is pardoned neither in this age or in the age to come, yet your catechism concludes the opposite by stating that certain offenses ARE forgiven in the age to come. (4) Your catechism references as its Scriptural support 1 Cor. 3:15 and 1Pet. 1:7. But actually, the context of 1 Cor. 3:15 is the future appraisal of the believer’s works by Christ, not sins; and 1 Pet. 1:7 is in reference to the fiery trials of those believers Peter is writing to while here on earth. Neither have anything to do with your doctrine of a purgatorial process after death by a “purifying/cleansing fire.”

 

[jmcrae]

This is still not addressing the fact you have a God that needs some kind of legalistic framework by which you sin, your sins are weighed up, and He punishes you until He is satisfied.

No, rather, what we believe is that God purifies us until we are perfect.

Becoming holy isn’t an instantaneous thing - it’s an apprenticeship that involves much trial and error, and requires a great deal of forgiveness.

This supposes that God simply won’t forgive right away all sins that you’ve committed, upon genuine request that they be forgiven. It supposes God still needs to be ‘satisfied’.

God’s forgiveness is not a “let’s just forget it ever happened” kind of forgiveness.

Rather, God takes the situation we have created with our sins, and uses it to purify us into the kind of people who will never want to behave like that, again - just like an apprentice when the master finds that he has made a mistake - it’s not “punishment” to make the apprentice fix the error and do the task over and over and over again until he can do it correctly; rather, it is part of the training process, until finally the apprentice masters the task and can do it well - at which point, the master then gives the apprentice some new, harder tasks to learn, and again, fixing the errors and practicing the techniques over and over and over again until perfection is acquired - and finally, the work of the master and the work of the apprentice become equal, and the apprentice is admitted into the guild.

We reach Heaven when we have perfectly mastered the tasks that God sets us, of loving other people, loving God, and being totally obedient to all of the Commandments not out of fear, but out of love.

Purgatory is the final training ground where we complete any elements of our apprenticeship in Sainthood that were overlooked or avoided during our lives. Just like an apprentice grumbles and hates to have to redo every job until it’s perfect in his master’s shop, we too will not like to be in Purgatory and be purified of our temptations to sin and our inclinations to be selfish - but it is a necessary step before we can be accepted into Sainthood in Heaven, since there is no room for “self” in Heaven.

 

[apophasis]

No, rather, what we believe is that God purifies us until we are perfect.

Becoming holy isn’t an instantaneous thing - it’s an apprenticeship that involves much trial and error, and requires a great deal of forgiveness.

God’s forgiveness is not a “let’s just forget it ever happened” kind of forgiveness.

Rather, God takes the situation we have created with our sins, and uses it to purify us into the kind of people who will never want to behave like that, again - just like an apprentice when the master finds that he has made a mistake - it’s not “punishment” to make the apprentice fix the error and do the task over and over and over again until he can do it correctly; rather, it is part of the training process, until finally the apprentice masters the task and can do it well - at which point, the master then gives the apprentice some new, harder tasks to learn, and again, fixing the errors and practicing the techniques over and over and over again until perfection is acquired - and finally, the work of the master and the work of the apprentice become equal, and the apprentice is admitted into the guild.

We reach Heaven when we have perfectly mastered the tasks that God sets us, of loving other people, loving God, and being totally obedient to all of the Commandments not out of fear, but out of love.

Purgatory is the final training ground where we complete any elements of our apprenticeship in Sainthood that were overlooked or avoided during our lives. Just like an apprentice grumbles and hates to have to redo every job until it’s perfect in his master’s shop, we too will not like to be in Purgatory and be purified of our temptations to sin and our inclinations to be selfish - but it is a necessary step before we can be accepted into Sainthood in Heaven, since there is no room for “self” in Heaven.

I guess since Purgatory isn’t a Biblical doctrine, but man-made, everyone has their own opinion of what goes on there and for what purpose. To me it’s like everybody getting together and discussing the Harry Potter books. You can really get into them, but in the end, they’re still fiction.

 

[Sixtus]

Purgatory isn’t a Biblical doctrine, but man-made,

If Purgatory is man-made, then why did the great St Paul believe in it and teach that such a state exists?

 

[jmcrae]

I guess since Purgatory isn’t a Biblical doctrine, but man-made, everyone has their own opinion of what goes on there and for what purpose. To me it’s like everybody getting together and discussing the Harry Potter books. You can really get into them, but in the end, they’re still fiction.

You’ll find that it’s real enough, when you get there.

Most of the Bible makes absolutely no sense unless we take its existence into account - it’s the only way we can satisfy the requirements of Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew chapters 5 through 7, while still being saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and not of our own doing.

Even most Protestants believe that, somehow, we go from our imperfect state here on earth to becoming perfect in Heaven, and although some Protestants/non-Catholics appear to believe in magic where somehow, mysteriously and unbeknownst to us we will suddenly find ourselves perfected in Heaven without knowing how we got there, most would agree that sanctification is a process initiated by God, and entered into willingly and cooperatively by human beings.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You’ll find that it’s real enough, when you get there.

Anyone who enters into any type of fire after the judgement seat of Christ is not coming out.

Most of the Bible makes absolutely no sense unless we take its existence into account - it’s the only way we can satisfy the requirements of Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew chapters 5 through 7, while still being saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and not of our own doing.

Even most Protestants believe that, somehow, we go from our imperfect state here on earth to becoming perfect in Heaven, and although some Protestants/non-Catholics appear to believe in magic where somehow, mysteriously and unbeknownst to us we will suddenly find ourselves perfected in Heaven without knowing how we got there, most would agree that sanctification is a process initiated by God, and entered into willingly and cooperatively by human beings.

I don’t know a Protestant who believes in magic, though with all due respect it seems that Catholics do. The fact is we WILL suddenly find ourselves in heaven and perfected and we will know how we got there. Sanctification is initiated by God, however it is a lifelong process that we “work out with fear and trembling” because we are saved. Sanctification ends at death when we go to be with the Lord. We appear before the judgement seat of Christ, we receive rewards for the works that we’ve done, and we enter into eternity.

 

[Montalban]

Yes. God was not only injured on the cross. He died on the cross. Our sins against God amounted to deicide-- the murder of God.

Which means God, the never-changing, changes in state from an ‘uninjured’ God, to an ‘injured’ God.

I don’t see the problem with this from a theological perspective. As far as I understand, both Catholic theology and the various protestant theologies agree with this simple truth-- God was pleased to have his Son die on the cross in order to make peace through his blood which was shed for the remisison of our sins.

I noted that Catholics and Protestants both believe that God needs to be satisfied. The only difference is ‘how?’

What’s wrong with saying that Jesus bore the sins of all humanity on the cross?
I guess I’m not really understanding your point here.

The point is God never changes.

And this means?

Like I said before, unless you understand that, from the Catholic perspective, grace is God’s life within you, you are not going to understand what’s being said here.

Unless you understand that grace is God’s life within you, you’re going to read this as if we Catholics think we can earn our way into heaven-- and that not what Catholicism is teaching.

Simply appealing to me ‘just understanding’ doesn’t help. Especially when I state you guys make claims about God, and I cite evidence, such as this from the Summa Theological, which shows this. You seem to admit God changes, by saying we injure God.

I would therefore suggest to you that perhaps it is you who does not understand the implications of Catholic teaching.

You have God, supreme, but changing. He’s gone from someone happy with creation, to someone ‘injured’ by sin, who demands ‘satisfaction’.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

This is still not addressing the fact you have a God that needs some kind of legalistic framework by which you sin, your sins are weighed up, and He punishes you until He is satisfied.

jmcrae:

No, rather, what we believe is that God purifies us until we are perfect.

How is God perfect if He changes?

jmcrae:

Becoming holy isn’t an instantaneous thing - it’s an apprenticeship that involves much trial and error, and requires a great deal of forgiveness.

Why? God forgives us if we seek forgiveness. Where does it say we must pay a price? Why would God want such a price to be paid, when God doesn’t want for anything.

Montalban:

This supposes that God simply won’t forgive right away all sins that you’ve committed, upon genuine request that they be forgiven. It supposes God still needs to be ‘satisfied’.

jmcrae:

God’s forgiveness is not a “let’s just forget it ever happened” kind of forgiveness.

Why not?

For us Orthodox, God is love. He doesn’t change. His ‘grace’ (for a western term) flows out constantly warming all those who wish to bask in it.

 

[Montalban]

If Purgatory is man-made, then why did the great St Paul believe in it and teach that such a state exists?

That assumes that he did.

 

[AlegreFe]

Sean Boyle;1765252:

That event continues to this day.

And you’re still eating yesterday’s breakfast?

So I guess you just completely ignored my post huh? Unless you really didn’t see it? Here I’ll put it here for you in case you didn’t see it.

apophasis;1764973:

And His sacrificial death a one time historical event by which He took away sins.

You’re absolutely right my friend. :yup:

I hope you realize that this sacrifice is still going on as we speak. Since God is outside of time, the sacrifice is still present to God the Father.

6 Then I saw standing in the midst of
the throne and the four living creatures
and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to
have been slain. Rev 5:6

This is what is going on at our Mass every single day. We don’t crucify Jesus again. It is that same sacrifice that happened at Calvery. We are making that one time sacrifice present to us.

I love the book of Revelation! That is OUR book… the Catholic’s that is! Well the whole Bible is our book but the Book of Revelation is our Heaven on Earth that is the Mass! The one Worship that is taking place in Heaven is taking place in our Mass today and every day!

Read Scott Hahn’s book about the Mass and the book of Revelation.
The Lamb’s Supper - The Mass as Heaven on Earth

This ONE TIME Sacrifice is still PRESENT to the Lord God the Father. God is outside of our “time” so because of that the sacrifice is always present to the Lord. The Lamb is still standing as slain.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

(1) There are absolutely no Scriptures that speak to men being cleansed of sins either by Christ’s blood or fire AFTER death.

This is just another assertion which doesn’t actually prove anything except that you disagree with us. If it boils down to this, then basically all that’s being done is we’re sitting here going back forth saying, “No. I’m right! You’re wrong!”…“No. I’m right! You’re wrong!”…“No. I’m right! You’re wrong!”…

And it doesn’t really accomplish a lot to be honest.

Having said that, I’ve provided references to Jews (before Christ’s incarnation) who understood these passage to mean that some kind of purgation of the soul occurs when necessary after death. And even through they don’t believe in purgatory in the same sense as Catholics do, it is clear that they understood these passages as implying a purgation of the soul after death when necessary. They even called it purgatory in their own holy writings, and many Jews, even to this day, still believe this simple truth too.

Consequently, this also indicates that, contrary to the claims being presented, the Catholic Church did not invent the concept of Purgatory. It was, like so many other things that Christianity inherrited from Judaism, believed to perfected in Christ as it was amplified by his blood.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

We can also look to the Orthodox Church too. Even through they don’t believe in purgatory in the same exact sense as Catholics do, they certainly likewise believe that some kind of purgation of the soul occurs after death when necessary.

For example, when we look to Service Books of the Orthodox Church, vol. I: the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, we read…

Again we pray for the repose of the soul(s) of the servant(s) of God (name(s)), departed this life; and that he (she, they) may be pardoned all his (her, their) sins, both voluntary and involuntary.

When union between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches was attempted at the Council of Florence, the subject of purgatory was a hot topic. In the end, all but one of the Eastern Orthodox representatives (Eastern Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus) agreed to the Council’s formulas.

What is significant is that Mark of Ephesus’ belief in cleansing (the meaning of “purgation”) after death, and most if not all of his speculations on what form it could take, are acceptable to Catholicism. From a Catholic perspective, Mark’s “dissent” was entirely semantic.

Compare these two formulas:

But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones [what Catholics call “venial sins”] over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place.

The souls of those who depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by worthy fruits of repentance, are cleansed after death by cleansing pains.

There are only two apparent differences between these two statements.

The first is that Mark of Ephesus was opposed to the term “fire” and the idea that cleansing occurs “in some place,” neither of which is defined by the Council of Florence (or any other Ecumenical Council) as part of Catholic teaching on purgatory.

The second is that the Council mentions “pain” or “suffering.” But Mark of Ephesus also believed that cleansing after death involves pain or suffering. He actually called his own theories “more torment than any fire…terror…that is much more tormenting and punishing than anything else.”

In other words, both the Council and Mark of Ephesus agreed that there is a cleansing after death, the conditions of which may be understood as suffering.

None of the Eastern Orthodox representatives, then, substantially disagreed with the Council.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Continued

We also, of course, have recourse to other Christians outside of these bodies who nonetheless believed in some kind of purgation of the soul even though their church did not specifically believe it. C. S. Lewis is probably one of the best examples of this in recent times…

Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?

I believe in Purgatory.

Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the ‘Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory’ as that Romish doctrine had then become…

The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘With its darkness to affront that light’. Religion has claimed Purgatory.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’ - ‘Even so, sir.’

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don’t think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am ‘coming round’,’ a voice will say, ‘Rinse your mouth out ith this.’ This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."

C.S. Lewis, Letters To Malcolm:
Chiefly on Prayer, chapter 20, paragraphs 7-10, pages 108-109

I’m not sure what else to say on this point. This doesn’t even include all the converts to Catholicism (such as Cardinal John Henry Newman, whom Lewis was refering to in regard’s to Newman’s deam above) throughout the age who disagreed with protestantism and plainly beleived that purgatory is implied. In short, there are many people who disagree with you-- and it’s not just Catholics either.

More to the point, if people rising up in the middle ages can suddenly claim the Church has been wrong all along, they have to be able to demonstrate why this was wrong-- aside from making claims that you have to read it ‘context’. And in doing so, they need to be able to point toward something, somewhere, somehow, in someway prior to the Reformation, where people believed as they did.

The problem is that they simply cannot do that. So, in response to this, they continue to make these astounding claims about ‘properly understanding’ the Scriptures ‘in context’.

And even if Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and High Anglicans like C. S. Lewis and later Catholics like Cardinal John Henry Newman cannot exactly agree on how the soul is purged after death, we all still nontheless agree with each other that God has always been, especially according to the Scriptures, purging souls after death when necessary.

The idea that there is no purgation of the soul when necessary, however, is the novel idea within the history of the Church. It bears no resemblance to the Christianity of the Apostolic Age-- or even prior to it.