Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[MariaG]

OOOPS!! I’m not sure what happened, there!

If you go back and look, while the words were not from P7, he did not place those words within a quote therefore when you quoted his post, it attributed those words to him instead of the person he was referring to.

 

[Pryority7]

Yeah…I messed up there. Sometimes those Quote tags are hard to manage…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yeah…I messed up there. Sometimes those Quote tags are hard to manage…

It’s an easy mistake to make actually-- so I wouldn’t worry about it, especially since it was an honest mistake and you did apologize. That’s actually why I always use quote tags and designate exactly who is speaking.

I cringe a little bit whenever someone just inserts their words in someone else’s post without any quote tags. Eventually, without them, people’s words start to blend together and it becomes really difficult for later people reading the text to determine exactly who said what.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You, on the other hand, keep trying to say the blood of Christ is involved with the fiery, purifying “process” of Rome’s Purgatory. But this is stated NOWHERE in its own catechism. So your idea of Purgatory is not only NON-BIBLICAL but NON-CATHOLIC as well. But I guess one can do this when something is NON-EXISTENT anyway.

Yes, I think I’ve had about enough of this.

apophasis:

No matter how hard you try, Maria, you cannot* Protestantize* something as uniquely Catholic as their doctrine of Purgatory. What you need to do is either fully accept their doctrine the way they teach it, or deny it and fully accept what Christ has done for you on the cross. The latter corresponds to a true, Biblical faith.

Well…aparently you’re just not getting this.

And now you’re actually claiming that we’re heterodox in our own beliefs?

I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to be taking my leave of discussing this with you apophasis. If I start to actually tell you (in detail) what I think of these words, I’ll probably end up getting banned from the Catholic forum that I love to partake in-- and I really don’t think you’re worth it.

Suffice to say, for a quick summary, whenever I hear someone claiming that I’m teachng something which is heterodox from Catholicism, my blood starts to boil at the arrogance of their claim.

We’ve never claimed that you were heterodox from your own faith. We’ve been more than willing to accept what you claim about your own faith at face value without attempting to malign your position in the process.

And yet here I see you trying to pull every trick in the book in your attempt to force the meaning of our own Catholic words past what we’ve actually claimed-- essentially claiming that we’re heterodox Catholics.

I’m sorry, but you’ve just lost my respect for you apophasis. You don’t really care what we say. Neither are you even the slightest bit concerned that you might really be misunderstanding our own Catholic teachings.

If that’s the case, then take care and goodbye. I’ve gone on record a few times saying that this should not be permitted here. But if you’re going to be allowed to make these claims unchecked, then there’s very little else I can say to help you understand this better.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Unfortunately, I think you are right.

It always saddens me when a person is so caught up in proving the Catholic Church wrong, they fail to actually read why they are mistaken.

So much so that they have to insist the explanation for purgatory has been “protestantized” instead of saying, Oh, I see what you mean now.

The good news is that since our explanation is apparently so “protestant” that means if he believed our explanation, he would actually agree to it at least on some level or he would not keep telling us that we have made it so protestant sounding.

Thanks for taking the time and finding all the specific words in the Catechism about Christ’s redemptive blood:thumbsup:

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Maria, I thank you for letting me assist you in all these things. I think you’ve done the greatest assist by helping me to stay calm in the face of their accusations against us.

I do have to say that I’m going to be stepping out of this thread now. I think my patience has been exausted-- and I’ve had enough of those who are non-Catholic claiming that we are heterodox Catholics-- and getting away with it.

Montalban and apophasis are both claiming that we actually don’t understand our own Catholic faith. They are stating quite bluntly that our answers are heterodox to Catholic thinking (and, therefore heterodox to Christ himself).

In other words, they’re ready to argue with us til they’re blue in the face that our own understanding of the Catholic faith is wrong.

I have have no patience with these kinds of tactics. Like pro_universal did before, and Mirdath too, Montalban and apophasis are both distorting Catholic teachings, claiming that their understanding of Catholicism’s true teachings is better than ours.

In other words, just as Muslim extremists hi-jacked US planes on 9/11 and used them as weapons against the US, people like Montalban and apophasis are hi-jacking Catholic doctrines in order to use them as a weapon against devout Catholics.

These kind of subtle attacks to subvert Catholic doctrines should not be permitted here. In fact, as soon as we allow this too happen, we have effectively lost our own sure footing and are constantly on the defense in our own attempts to defend the definitions we are using to explain Catholic doctrines-- all the while people like Montalban and apophasis get away with making all kinds of anti-Catholic slanders against us.

Exactly why these kinds of arguments are allowed to take place here, I don’t understand. It certainly doesn’t contribute to ecumenism at all as far as i can tell. In fact, it works against it, And it’s these exact same kind of tactics which gave birth to the blunders and heresies of the Protestant Reformation-- I see no end in sight of any debate which allows others to redefine Catholic teaching the way they do.

So, before I end up getting banned, I really do have to step out at this point Maria.

God bless you in your wisdom in Christ Maria. And I thank you for helping to stay polite in the face of those who would impolitely use these tactics against us. The world can use a lot more people like you.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Then you confuse the nature of God and Man that is in Jesus.
Many JWs, Moslems etc, object to the Christian notions of Jesus on the cross, saying “How can God die”, well God didn’t. God can’t die. Maybe you think He can. Hence your argument displays a confusion about the nature of God.
Because you simply demonstrate a confusion of argument by saying that both God is seeking ‘justification’ and that He’s not.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins our not?

How can God die? This is a problem you continue to face with confusion over the nature of God.

Here’s what your own apologist site says
"Thus it was God the Son who died—not, of course, in his divine nature, which cannot know death and which holds the universe in existence, but in the human nature which was so utterly his. "
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312clas.asp
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Is Jesus God or is Jesus not God?

He is also Man. It is in redeeming Man, as only He could that Man is saved. The nature of man was redeemed.

Montalban:

We don’t have a ‘cult of personality’ in the East, EVEN IF such said this, doesn’t make it true.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

If?

Yes, read the next bit…

Montalban:

Even your great Augustine made errors. However, simply claiming this of the like of John Chrysostomon is not uncommon an argument to make.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Are you saying that John Chrysostom made a mistake when he talked about this?

I already answered that, see the next bit. (It seems you’re too eager to respond)

Montalban:

Misquoting him is easy for you too.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

But I haven’t misquoted him. I haven’t misquoted John Chrysostom. Nor have I misquoted St. Mark of Ephesus either.

Yes you have. By suggesting that any statement of his regarding an after-death place is equivalent to being a support for purgatory.

Montalban:

Purgatory is, for you, a place where the dead are punished until God is satisfied.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

No. In the most raw sense, purgatory is the process of one’s soul being purified by the blood of Christ as one passes into heaven. Purgatory is a transformation of the soul.

No. It’s a place of fire for the punishment of souls until God is satisfied. I’ve already given you ample quotes about God needing satisfaction.
I quoted
“God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin”
newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Here’s what this apologist site says…
“He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage."
catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

Montalban:

For us, if a place exists for the dead, that is a half-way place to heaven, it is not a place for punishment until God is satisfied, because God does not need to be ‘satisfied’.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI’s description of purgatory would help you to understand how much we are in agreement here. James Akin notes Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts (when the Pope was known as Cardinal Ratzinger) here…

Quoteurgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is 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. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord [is] this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy.*

Is he speaking infallibly?
Catholic Answers disagrees with the Pope. So does the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

 

[Montalban]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

So the Orthodox ascetic teaching on the demonic toll-houses encountered by the soul after death doesn’t cheapen the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, but purgatory does?

a) It’s not Orthodox doctrine
b) Being ‘tempted’ before or after death is not the same as being ‘punished’.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

No. It’s not. We’re talking about a very similar process in which the soul is cleansed after the physical body has died. We both believe this to be true.

As noted, you have a place of punishment to satisfy God, who shouldn’t need to be satisfied. We have some Orthodox who believe in a place of journey where people are tempted, as they were in life (which is not the same as being punished).
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Limbo has never been defined as an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Besides that, if someone were to go into Limbo, then this would be the opposite of purgatory in the sense that the pure soul in Limbo never actually gets to heaven but the purged soul in purgatory does. I’m with Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on limbo by the way-- limbo is a hypothetical theory whereas purgatory is actually a divinely revealed truth.

It’s you missing the point. Limbo and Purgatory are totally different states of being after death. That is the point. I’m saying that just because you can point to someone believing in *any * state of being after death (that is not heaven nor hell), does not mean that it is the same as saying they believe in purgatory. That is the point. Some Orthodox believe in ‘toll houses’. This is not PURGATORY. It is a different type of place. One goes there for different reasons. It’s not because God needs to be satisfied. To cite John Chysostomon because he believes in A place after death is not the same as saying he believes in THE place after death (purgatory).
quote=Mr. Ex Nihilo]We’re sharing in his suffering to glorify his name as he transfigures us into his likeness in purgatory.
But God doesn’t need to be satisfied.

We believe in two different ideas of God.

For us, God is love. He created us and we are ‘good’. Sin entered nature and through nature we are sinful. Jesus came to redeem our nature by taking on that nature. Jesus as God and Man was crucified, and through that act our nature can be restored. We do ‘pennance’ to better strength ourselves. Like one does exercises, if one is an athlete. Occasionally that athlete will fail, because we are not perfect, but he will continue to strive for greatness. For us God is like a doctor, helping us with our spiritual health.

For you God demands satisfaction for an injury. He is like a judge. He administers punishment to those who affront His laws. Purgatory is like a prison where you spend time until you’re redeemed. Until your ‘ledger’ is wiped clean of all the crimes you’ve committed.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

He was pleased with his Son, wasn’t he?
If he was pleased with Jesus, then he was satisfied with Jesus.

For us such language is a way we describe the way God acts. Maybe you think God literally rested on the seventh day, put his feet up and read a good book after a hard week’s work.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

And deliberately ignoring our explanations does not an intelligent conversation make.

I haven’t. You simply believe champion a position that doesn’t make sense; such as God died on the cross, and therefore God changes.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

This has been explained to you Montalban. But you’re not really interested in listening to us, are you?

You simply revert to the emotive appeal
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

You are indeed more concerned with super-imposing your own misconceptions about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory than actually listening to the explanations that Catholics themselves have offered to you.

That’s simply not true. I’ve been at great pains to cite authoritative Catholic sites. You site a few opinion sites.

 

[MariaG]

So, before I end up getting banned, I really do have to step out at this point Maria.

God bless you in your wisdom in Christ Maria. And I thank you for helping to stay polite in the face of those who would impolitely use these tactics against us. The world can use a lot more people like you.

I have enjoyed your help. You too have helped me stay focused and calm.

This argument is very like the “You worship Mary” arguments when we show what we actually do, and are told we don’t understand what our own Church teaches.

We will see if I am able to stay charitable. I have to tell you, I find this kind of slander more unpalatable from our Orthodox Brethren. Don’t know why I should hold them to a higher standard of conduct, but there it is.

May God Bless you and renew your spirit

Maria

 

[MariaG]

Here’s what this apologist site says…
“He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage."
catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

Now, it appears as if you have lost Mr. Ex Nihlo. I’ll have to admit, I have not followed you discussions closely. If you do not wish to repeat things, as I have no desire to seek out your other posts, I guess you will have to call it a day.

Otherwise, maybe you could explain the above quote and what your thoughts are on this. I have to admit to being confused as to what your contention is? If you choose not to, I’ll certainly understand and wish you a good day:tiphat: .

God bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

I just have to say, I noticed that we are barely halfway through the allowed number of posts per thread. We can keep repeating this over and over for a while yet

 

[Pryority7]

Yeah, now that N has stepped down, now you go in for the kill, right?

From an honest truth seeking debate to this…so sad.
What is up with you guys? What…did someone who was Catholic hurt you a long time ago?

It is this type of slander and anti-catholic jargon that keeps divisions within the Body of Christ. You and apo are going against Christ’s teachings of us being one with Him like He and the Father are One. You drive in and practically make us look like we are so ignorant and unknowing about the Catholic faith that you must go back to your little anti-catholic groups and boast how you will continue to “pray” for our lost little souls. Your ignorance is your solitude and the day someone pops your little man made bubble is the day we won’t see you here in these forums again.

Am I sounding like I’m angry? I am. Apo…I will say this again…OPEN YOUR MIND AND YOUR HEART…
please.

P7

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

How can God die? This is a problem you continue to face with confusion over the nature of God.

God’s Spirit went down to the place of the dead, just like all other 'normal souls" did, in order to draw all the souls that would be saved in him through his own divine soul in order to draw them into heaven-- that’s purgatory.

Montalban:

Here’s what your own apologist site says
"Thus it was God the Son who died—not, of course, in his divine nature, which cannot know death and which holds the universe in existence, but in the human nature which was so utterly his. "
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312clas.asp

I know what it says. But nothing said here negates the fact that God’s divine Spirit went down to the very place of the dead in order to draw up all the souls that would be redeemed in him. Even though he was true God and true man, his divine Spirit did indeed go to the place of the dead in order to save us.

(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Since his Spirit was divine, he could not be trapped in the abode of the dead like us mere mortals were. And if he did not have a divine Spirit, he would have never been able to save us from the place of the dead in the first place. The reason why he can do this is because Jesus is true God and true man.
Acts 2:24:

But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

His flesh expereinced death so that his Spirit could experience the place of the dead-- and yet it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him precisely because he had a divine soul. Consequently, if he had not died in this way, he would not have been able to allow his divine Spirit to experience the place of the dead and return from it unscathed in order to symapthize with us and redeem us before the Father in heaven.
Hebrews 4:15:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

Montalban:

He is also Man. It is in redeeming Man, as only He could that Man is saved. The nature of man was redeemed.

Our spirits were redeemed too.

In fact his blood was spilled so that his divine Spirit could be released into the realm of the dead in order to bring healing to our dying spirits. Without his divine sacrifice, we would have remained in our sins, sunk even further into sin, and inevitably lost into the depths of hell.

Montalban:

We don’t have a ‘cult of personality’ in the East, EVEN IF such said this, doesn’t make it true.

You have saints too Montalban.

Montalban:

Yes, read the next bit…

I have. And at this point I don’t even know why you’re arguing with me on this. I’m trying to find common grounds with you all the while you’re just looking for the slighest reason to argue.

Montalban:

I already answered that, see the next bit. (It seems you’re too eager to respond)

When someone claims over and over again that I’m illogically describing something from the Catholic faith in a heterodox fashion, yes, one tends to be a bit eager to respond to correct these false assertions and accusations.

Montalban:

Yes you have. By suggesting that any statement of his regarding an after-death place is equivalent to being a support for purgatory.

It supports purgatory just like it supports your view too.

You can’t have it both ways Montalban, denouncing Catholic views all the while claiming that your Orthodox view is the correct way to view the soul after death.

This is hypocritical nonsense. Both views believe the souls of the departed were assisted in some way after death.

Montalban:

No. It’s a place of fire for the punishment of souls until God is satisfied.

Yes. And God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Why can’t you understand this?

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

Montalban:

I’ve already given you ample quotes about God needing satisfaction.

Yes. And I’ve explained to you that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Montalban:

I quoted “God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin”
newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Yes. And I’ve explained to you that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Montalban:

Here’s what this apologist site says…
“He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage."
catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp

Yes. And he is right: the Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage. As I’ve explained to you many times now, God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Montalban:

Is he speaking infallibly?

He was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when he wrote that, working alongside Pope John Paul II, and in agreement with the bishops as well.

So, yes, since nothing he said contradicted Church teachings on purgatory, his pronunciation is certainly an official declaration which is free of doctrinal or moral error.

Montalban:

Catholic Answers disagrees with the Pope. So does the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

No. All three are in perfect agreement once you realize that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

 

[Damascus]

To the Orthodox posters here and to any Catholics still left here-

Why do we pray for the dead?

The Liturgy of Basil and Chrysostom have them in the Liturgy of the Orthodox.

Why do Orthodox think Theosis+Tollhouse is any different than Purgatory?

Genuine questions I am hoping to not get bashed by anyone.

This thread should be open to Protestants and I think they are hesistant to watching the back and forth with the Orthodox and Catholics, So I hope they will come back and comment too.

Edit**** Addition

In the third century, Tertullian, writing around 210, asserts that:

There are already punishments and rewards there [in Hades]; and there you have a poor man and a rich one [Luke 16:22 ff.] . . . In short, if we understand that prison of which the Gospel speaks to be Hades, and if we interpret the last farthing [Matthew 5:25-6] to be the light offense which is to be expiated there before the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul undergoes some punishments in Hades, without prejudice to the fullness of the resurrection, after which recompense will be made through the flesh also.

I am trying to find the source for this, I cant read it…The Soul, 58:1,8. Jurgens, FEF, vol. 1, 144-145.

Eyes getting blurry…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

a) It’s not Orthodox doctrine
b) Being ‘tempted’ before or after death is not the same as being ‘punished’.

So what’s the difference?

Is being tempted after death more satisfying to God than being purged after death?

Montalban:

As noted, you have a place of punishment to satisfy God, who shouldn’t need to be satisfied.

Yes. And I’ve explained to you that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Furthermore, as St. Augustine notes, let us understand that God is a physician, and that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

Montalban:

We have some Orthodox who believe in a place of journey where people are tempted, as they were in life (which is not the same as being punished).

Well we have Catholics who believe in a transformation where people are being purged of their sins, purified by the blood of Christ as they were in life (and we understand that this suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation).

Montalban:

It’s you missing the point. Limbo and Purgatory are totally different states of being after death.

I think you’re missing the point.

First of all, I could be wrong, but I don’t even think Limbo exists. So if you want to accuse of heterodox in regards to Catholic thoughts on Limbo, then go ahead. You won’t me hear me arguing with you in regards to this. It’s a hypothetical theory of theogians and not on the same calibre as the Catholic teachings on the doctrine of purgatory.

Montalban:

That is the point. I’m saying that just because you can point to someone believing in *any * state of being after death (that is not heaven nor hell), does not mean that it is the same as saying they believe in purgatory.

Yes. But St. John Chrysostom and St. Mark of Ephesus both beleived that people were being assisted after death.

In the case of St. John Chrysostom he specifically mentions that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation.

So I have to ask consolation from what?

Likewise, St. Mark of Ephesus goes even further and notes that there is a suffering going on as people are assisted, a suffering even greater than passing through fire.

If this is the case, then why are people sufferig in the afterlife if their not going to hell?

Montalban:

That is the point. Some Orthodox believe in ‘toll houses’. This is not PURGATORY. It is a different type of place. One goes there for different reasons. It’s not because God needs to be satisfied. To cite John Chysostomon because he believes in A place after death is not the same as saying he believes in THE place after death (purgatory).

In the case of St. John Chrysostom he specifically mentions that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation.

So I have to ask consolation from what?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued…

We’re sharing in his suffering to glorify his name as he transfigures us into his likeness in purgatory.

Montalban:

But God doesn’t need to be satisfied.

Exactly. Because God is satisifed with Christ’s death-- it is in his Son that he is most pleased.

God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Montalban:

We believe in two different ideas of God.

No. We believe in the same ideas about God, but we appoach this idea from two complimentary positions-- like two complementary colors when harmonize well together when understood correctly.

Montalban:

For us, God is love.

We believe that God is love too.

Montalban:

He created us and we are ‘good’. Sin entered nature and through nature we are sinful. Jesus came to redeem our nature by taking on that nature. Jesus as God and Man was crucified, and through that act our nature can be restored.

There is nothing here which is widely separated from Catholic thought.

Montalban:

We do ‘pennance’ to better strength ourselves. Like one does exercises, if one is an athlete.

I’m not trying to be picky, but I would say that God is doing this penance through you by the Holy Spirit-- and you are not doing this on your own sinful human will. We don’t do ‘penance’ to better strengthen ourselves no more than we do ‘good works’ to earn our salvation. The reason why we do penance is because Christ is allowing us to share in his divinity by the Holy Spirit to that we might glorify his name through his divine suffering which he allows us to partake in, a suffering and redemption which has already been accomplished on the cross.

Montalban:

Occasionally that athlete will fail, because we are not perfect, but he will continue to strive for greatness. For us God is like a doctor, helping us with our spiritual health.

That’s how we see it too. Again, as St. Augustine notes, let us understand that God is a physician, and that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

Montalban:

For you God demands satisfaction for an injury. He is like a judge.

God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son. There is no more sacrifice which can be added to his Son’s divine sacrifice. All that remains is for Christ to greatly manifest himself within our souls to cleanse us of our sins.

Montalban:

He administers punishment to those who affront His laws. Purgatory is like a prison where you spend time until you’re redeemed. Until your ‘ledger’ is wiped clean of all the crimes you’ve committed.

You need to understand that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

Montalban:

For us such language is a way we describe the way God acts.

BINGO!

For us such language is a way we describe the way God acts too. But you need to understand that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

You also need to understand that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

There is no more sacrifice which can be added to his Son’s divine sacrifice. All that remains is for Christ to greatly manifest himself within our souls to cleanse us of our sins.

Montalban:

Maybe you think God literally rested on the seventh day, put his feet up and read a good book after a hard week’s work.

No. I think he slowed down his frame of reference which experienced time from eternity to one of man’s perspective.

Montalban:

I haven’t. You simply believe champion a position that doesn’t make sense; such as God died on the cross, and therefore God changes.

Have I explained this better now?

Montalban:

You simply revert to the emotive appeal[/quopte]

So do you-- and many times at that.

Montalban:

That’s simply not true. I’ve been at great pains to cite authoritative Catholic sites. You site a few opinion sites.

And yet you still ignore the fact that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

You need to understand that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

 

[Montalban]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

So what’s the difference?
Is being tempted after death more satisfying to God than being purged after death?

It’s a non-issue as the idea of ‘satisfying’ God is only Catholic teaching.

Montalban:

As noted, you have a place of punishment to satisfy God, who shouldn’t need to be satisfied.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Yes. And I’ve explained to you that God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

You’ve argued that God doesn’t need to be satisfied. Now you argue that He was, by His Son. You went on about how I just don’t get Catholic teaching.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Furthermore, as St. Augustine notes, let us understand that God is a physician, and that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

Good, that makes Augustine closer to Orthodoxy on this. For Catholic teaching God wants you punished. No matter how many times you claim you’ve just ‘explained’ it, you simply try to contradict the Catholic sources I’ve cited.

Montalban:

We have some Orthodox who believe in a place of journey where people are tempted, as they were in life (which is not the same as being punished).

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Well we have Catholics who believe in a transformation where people are being purged of their sins, purified by the blood of Christ as they were in life (and we understand that this suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation).

Goody for them, but that still doesn’t negate the Catholic teaching on purgatory.

Montalban:

It’s you missing the point. Limbo and Purgatory are totally different states of being after death.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I think you’re missing the point.

No, you’re about to give evidence against yourself on this point.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

First of all, I could be wrong, but I don’t even think Limbo exists.

WHICH IS BESIDES THE POINT. I just pointed out it was. The point isn’t whether Purgatory or Limbo existed but to point out that there are ideas of ‘existence’ beyond death, and that simply because someone believes in a state after death doesn’t mean that they believe in one or the other. I’ll try going through this slowly. You evidenced John Chrysostomon’s words about such a state. You immediately assumed he is talking about purgatory. You offered no such evidence that he was. He could have been talking about ‘limbo’, ‘toll-houses’, or another state.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

So if you want to accuse of heterodox in regards to Catholic thoughts on Limbo, then go ahead. You won’t me hear me arguing with you in regards to this. It’s a hypothetical theory of theogians and not on the same calibre as the Catholic teachings on the doctrine of purgatory.

I’m not accusing you of anything here. Maybe not reading what I write.

Montalban:

That is the point. I’m saying that just because you can point to someone believing in any state of being after death (that is not heaven nor hell), does not mean that it is the same as saying they believe in purgatory.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Yes. But St. John Chrysostom and St. Mark of Ephesus both believed that people were being assisted after death.

And why does this not mean the idea of toll-houses. Sheesh!
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

In the case of St. John Chrysostom he specifically mentions that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation.
So I have to ask consolation from what?

You’re the one insisting it’s purgatory! Personally I have not enough study in the ‘after-life’. I am working on the premise of what I do know about God, and that is that He does not require us to be tormented. It might well be the ‘testing’ of toll-houses. I don’t know. You seem to be certain, though; that it’s purgatory, and you’ve offered no such evidence. Then gone off on a tangent about me accusing you of something over limbo, missing the point, denying you’re missing the point, continuing on about the existence of limbo (per se), then throwing it back at me to explain what state it is; believing that it simply must be purgatory, because you already believe in purgatory.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

If this is the case, then why are people suffering in the afterlife if their not going to hell?

Why are they suffering at all?

I note too you’ve dropped your strangely unique concept of God dying.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

In the case of St. John Chrysostom he specifically mentions that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation.

So I have to ask consolation from what?

See above.

 

[Montalban]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

We’re sharing in his suffering to glorify his name as he transfigures us into his likeness in purgatory.

Montalban:

But God doesn’t need to be satisfied.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Exactly. Because God is satisfied with Christ’s death-- it is in his Son that he is most pleased.

He doesn’t. But he did?!? Man, you need to really stick to an argument. It also still doesn’t take away from the many quotes I’ve cited that say Catholics believe that He does need to be satisfied.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son.

Until He’s satisfied!

Montalban:

We believe in two different ideas of God.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

No. We believe in the same ideas about God, but we approach this idea from two complimentary positions-- like two complementary colours when harmonize well together when understood correctly.

That’s false. We don’t believe God needs to be satisfied. Catholics do. You personally don’t although you’re more than happy to contradict yourself on this too, and not to address Catholic sites I cite, claiming I just don’t understand you.

Montalban:

For us, God is love.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

We believe that God is love too.

Except for you, He sometimes needs to be ‘satisfied’

Montalban:

He created us and we are ‘good’. Sin entered nature and through nature we are sinful. Jesus came to redeem our nature by taking on that nature. Jesus as God and Man was crucified, and through that act our nature can be restored.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

There is nothing here which is widely separated from Catholic thought.

No, you believe man is sinful, because each are born with the stain of Original Sin.

Montalban:

We do ‘pennance’ to better strength ourselves. Like one does exercises, if one is an athlete.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I’m not trying to be picky, but I would say that God is doing this penance through you by the Holy Spirit-- and you are not doing this on your own sinful human will. We don’t do ‘penance’ to better strengthen ourselves no more than we do ‘good works’ to earn our salvation. The reason why we do penance is because Christ is allowing us to share in his divinity by the Holy Spirit to that we might glorify his name through his divine suffering which he allows us to partake in, a suffering and redemption which has already been accomplished on the cross.

There you show you and I differ in our concepts of God. We don’t do ‘works’ to earn salvation, because salvation isn’t earned! That’s the whole point I keep going on about God does not need to be satisfied. There’s no ‘ledger’ of good and bad. To be saved all you have to do is ask. Even Adolf Hitler would have been saved if he returned to God at his last moments. You can’t keep using such language of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘earning’ and still deny you’re doing so.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

For you God demands satisfaction for an injury. He is like a judge.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

God was most pleased with his Son-- God was totally satisfied with his divine Son. That’s why he purges our souls in purgatory through the blood of Christ until we bear the likeness of his Son. There is no more sacrifice which can be added to his Son’s divine sacrifice. All that remains is for Christ to greatly manifest himself within our souls to cleanse us of our sins.

So why did God need to be satisfied! Man this is a frustrating discussion. For you, God is imperfect because He changed from being a satisfied God, to an un-satisfied God.

Montalban:

He administers punishment to those who affront His laws. Purgatory is like a prison where you spend time until you’re redeemed. Until your ‘ledger’ is wiped clean of all the crimes you’ve committed.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

You need to understand that suffering is a medicine for salvation, not a punishment for damnation.

No, you need to be aware that when Catholic sites talk about an injured God, the need for injuries to be satisfied, and a purging fire then they are talking of a different concept of God.

Montalban:

For us such language is a way we describe the way God acts.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

BINGO!

Indeed, Bingo. And you use the type of language that says that God needed to be satisfied. We don’t, because God never needed to be.

This is just going around in circles.

We don’t use the terminology of God’s satisfaction, except at a lower level of understanding. A proper understanding is that God never needed to be satisfied. Whether you believe that He is unsatisfied now, or is now, you’ve still used language of a changing God. You admit you understand God *is *love but continue to prefer a way of talking that has God punishing you until He’s satisfied you’ve made up for all past bad deeds

At best it shows that the Catholic explanation of God’s grace at work is child-like. (as a loving parent explains simplistic terms to kids).

Purgatory can’t exist because a loving God would forgive you of your sins, if you ask for that forgiveness. For you, you’d still have ‘stain’ until this is purged.

 

[AlegreFe]

Oh my goodness. I had to take a break from this particular thread. It seems the non-Catholic Christians here don’t actually want to learn from anything we post in here. So I had to just take a breather.

For us Catholics, our suffering here on earth is the start of our purification to enter into our Master’s House. The only thing is that the purification will more than likely not be done here. It will be done in Purgatory. Whether Purgatory is a place or process is not known. The Church does not speak of that specifically either way. It is better understood for me if it is spoken as a place but in that place a process is going on. So I guess it could be either one for me. As far as time frame that is not specified either. Purgatory just is and that’s it, whether you believe it or not.

The good thing to know is that we can have our Purgatory right here on earth. Our sufferings should not be ignored and/or taken so hard. They should be united to the sufferings of Jesus on the Cross. I do that by praying and especially during Mass when the priest holds up Jesus’ body and blood on the altar and says, “Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours Almighty Father, forever and ever.” And then we give our “Great Amen.” We don’t say “great” we just say “amen.” It has been called the “Great Amen” however. I like that.
There is great reward for uniting our sufferings to those of Christ’s. Our sufferings here are redemptive.

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,
and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in
Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that
is, the church Col 1:24