Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[AlegreFe]

I think you have the right idea AlegreFe. Perhaps we all need to take a break from this one. The explanations we’ve all offered (you, me, Maria and all the other fellow Catholics too) simply do not seem to be taking root at all.

I think they just have to pray before they read. Be open in heart and mind and pray again. Then they can read these posts again. But what are the chances of them doing that?
I hope with our prayers the chances are good.

 

[apophasis]

jmcare:

Does this mean that nobody goes to Hell, either? If we assume that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” is what Paul meant to say, and, further, we assume that this is intended to be taken literally, then wouldn’t that mean that everyone who dies goes instantaneously to be with the Lord, including people like Adolf Hitler and Judas Iscariot?

What a silly response!!! Paul is to be taken literally, there’s no other way you can take him in that passage. But he was referring to the redeemed, not the wicked who, in unbelief, have died in their sins (Jn. 8:24).

 

[apophasis]

Priority7:

The cross itself totally contradicts it. The clear teaching of Paul that to be absent from the body is to be at Home with the Lord contradicts it. Paul’s teaching of who the true believer is now “in Christ” totally contradicts it.

I stated this in the earlier post…Paul was talking about HIS OWN SUBJECTIVE WISH…There is nothing in this reading that even remotely suggests that there is no transition between being in the body and being with the Lord.

Sure there is. If there was a “detour” he could not have made that statement, or he would have taught and elaborated on that specific “detour” elsewhere in his Epistles - he did not. Nor does the text at all indicate Paul was expressing his own subjective “wish.” His statement is plainly didactic.

And once again you’ve ignored the statement I made regarding you conveniently leaving out a verse in that reading…too legalistic for you, isnt’ it?

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[apophasis]

Priority7:

No, they don’t. Where in Scripture does it say that The Father, the Son , and the Holy Spirit is God Almighty, separate persons yet One God? Show me the Scripture reading…and don’t give me John 1 or Genesis 2 or something like that because they don’t specifically state what I’m asking for above. You see…we can do this too. Show me where it states that God became Man (The Incarnation). I’m sure Arius made the same objections in this subject.
Therefore, don’t be surprised, John. I’m merely dishing out the same ammo that you’re using. It can go both ways, but one needs and OPEN HEART and OPEN MIND to really see the hidden treasures of the Word of God.

I would hardly call the doctrine of Purgatory a “hidden treasure” in the Word of God. The point being, P-7, is that Purgatory is an *extra-Biblical *doctrine - it’s not revealed there!!. It’s a doctrine formed by men, based partly on on (1) human reasoning, (2) on unbelief, (3) and on the influx of Greek philosophy into the church. It’s not based at all on Divine revelation. The “Trinity,” the “Incarnation” and “Original Sin” (when Adam sinned we all sinned) are, however, embedded in the Scriptures and are doctrines formed directly from them.

 

[apophasis]

MariaG:

When will you admit that the Catholic Church does not teach a time element for purgatory?

There is no time element and in fact it may be instantaneous.

“In fact???” On what objective basis do you state this “fact” of yours??? In fact, I’m still waiting for any of you to provide the Divine revelation for this doctrine of yours.

Maria, you’re trying so hard to make this unbiblical doctrine palatable. If the “process” is, as you insist, “in fact” instantaneous, then why the doctrines of “Supererogation” and “Indulgences?” Doctrines which teach that meritorious works of those in this life, and of glorified saints, even Christ and Mary, can be imputed to and shorten the “time” of those suffering in Purgatory NOW.

If it’s, in fact, instantaneous, why then did those church officials in the past take money from Catholic laymen for the very purpose of shortening their stint in Purgatory. Why did Popes Julius II and Leo X issue bulls, in respect to indulgences, for the purpose of extracting money from the fearful in order to be used to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica???

If it’s all so “instantaneous,” as you claim, of what purpose then do the doctrines of “Supererogation” and “Indulgences” serve? There would be no time element to be shortened - it’s all INSTANTANEOUS!.

If your “instantaneous” proclamation is right then those two doctrinal children of Purgatory are shams, and you can only imagine the guilt piled upon those church officials who took advantage of those poor, ignorant souls who were taught by them to fear those impending Purgatorial fires which they must suffer and endure for some undefined amount of time.

It is amazing that Rome strenuously denies the possibility that Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to the believer as the ground of his, once for all, justification before God; and yet teach that the merits of “saints” and Mary (created humanity) may be imputed to sinners held in Purgatory for the ground of their forgiveness toward the temporal punishments they’re now suffering.

I am absoutely baffled how those who claim to be “born again” of the Spirit can accept such inconsistent and anti-scriptural doctrines.

**Please Note: **This thead is titled, “Why do Protestants object to Purgatory” - well, I’m a “Protestant” telling you why I cannot possibly accept that horrific doctrine. So, please, all of you, don’t get upset because I am responding to the original question asked.

 

[jmcrae]

What a silly response!!! Paul is to be taken literally, there’s no other way you can take him in that passage. But he was referring to the redeemed, not the wicked who, in unbelief, have died in their sins (Jn. 8:24).

So, then, it’s not literally true that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord, since it’s not true for everyone.

Aside from the fact that it’s not what Paul actually said, anyway - what he actually said was “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” (II Corinthians 5:8)

The Bible itself doesn’t actually contain the phrase “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord,” and nor does St. Paul give us any good reason to think that he ever believed this - the second “and” in the sentence tells us that he is speaking about two different things that don’t necessarily have a cause-and-effect relationship to each other.

 

[apophasis]

So, then, it’s not literally true that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord, since it’s not true for everyone.

Aside from the fact that it’s not what Paul actually said, anyway - what he actually said was “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” (II Corinthians 5:8)

The Bible itself doesn’t actually contain the phrase “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord,” and nor does St. Paul give us any good reason to think that he ever believed this - the second “and” in the sentence tells us that he is speaking about two different things that don’t necessarily have a cause-and-effect relationship to each other.

Actually, Paul’s teaching in 2 Cor. 5:8 is quite didactic. He teaches no detour there nor anywhere else in his Epistles. He totally understood the cross of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, Paul’s teaching in 2 Cor. 5:8 is quite didactic. He teaches no detour there nor anywhere else in his Epistles. He totally understood the cross of Christ.

Purgatory isn’t a “detour” - it’s on the road to Heaven. Those who don’t become purified in this life will become purified in the next life - either that or they will go to Hell. That’s what is meant by “purgatory” - a place of purification.

 

[roblrich]

If you are saved, you are already forgiven of all the sins you have ever or will ever commit.

Oh my! Now that is arrogance. So after one is “saved”, he has no motivation or requirement to live as a Christain, because it doesn’t matter what he does. Once saved, always saved. How convenient!

Now for sure I am convinced! I am converting to Catholicism.

 

[Damascus]

Theosis is the process by which we become God. It is certainly not a punishment. It is the whole Orthodox Christian way of life by which we follow ‘the Way’ of Christ.

Thank you for this answer - I know it got buried in all the rapid fire posting.

Theosis is EXACTLY the same thing. Its a purification here on earth, and you can explain tollhouse, I dont want to.

I dont think I am missing the point but if you think I am help me out.

Maybe Gregoty Palamas can step in here?

I gotta run now. Think about it. I dont want to argue with you Montalban, I actually like your posts on Islam, and am not trying to fight here.

 

[MariaG]

“In fact???” On what objective basis do you state this “fact” of yours??? In fact, I’m still waiting for any of you to provide the Divine revelation for this doctrine of yours.

Maria, you’re trying so hard to make this unbiblical doctrine palatable. If the “process” is, as you insist, “in fact” instantaneous, then why the doctrines of “Supererogation” and “Indulgences?” Doctrines which teach that meritorious works of those in this life, and of glorified saints, even Christ and Mary, can be imputed to and shorten the “time” of those suffering in Purgatory NOW.

If it’s, in fact, instantaneous, why then did those church officials in the past take money from Catholic laymen for the very purpose of shortening their stint in Purgatory. Why did Popes Julius II and Leo X issue bulls, in respect to indulgences, for the purpose of extracting money from the fearful in order to be used to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica???

If it’s all so “instantaneous,” as you claim, of what purpose then do the doctrines of “Supererogation” and “Indulgences” serve? There would be no time element to be shortened - it’s all INSTANTANEOUS!.

If your “instantaneous” proclamation is right then those two doctrinal children of Purgatory are shams, and you can only imagine the guilt piled upon those church officials who took advantage of those poor, ignorant souls who were taught by them to fear those impending Purgatorial fires which they must suffer and endure for some undefined amount of time.

It is amazing that Rome strenuously denies the possibility that Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to the believer as the ground of his, once for all, justification before God; and yet teach that the merits of “saints” and Mary (created humanity) may be imputed to sinners held in Purgatory for the ground of their forgiveness toward the temporal punishments they’re now suffering.

I am absoutely baffled how those who claim to be “born again” of the Spirit can accept such inconsistent and anti-scriptural doctrines.

**Please Note: **This thead is titled, “Why do Protestants object to Purgatory” - well, I’m a “Protestant” telling you why I cannot possibly accept that horrific doctrine. So, please, all of you, don’t get upset because I am responding to the original question asked.

I have no problem with a Protestant who objects to the doctrine of purgatory, the process in which one is cleansed by the blood of Christ.

I do have a problem with a Protestant who tells me I do not understand my own doctrines. Doctrines that have been shown to you mentioning specifically that one’s sins are forgiven through his Sacrifice, even specifically mentioning blood in the Catechism.

You reject all explanations and accuse me of trying to make them more protestant sounding instead of admitting that maybe you misunderstood what purgatory is all about.

Purgatory is completely biblical as well as completely historical. I accept that you disagree. I find it sad that you are unwilling to believe the explanations from the Catechism, (at one time you wanted to see where one sins are forgiven by the blood, yet once shown this in the catechism, still would not admit to your error of misunderstanding.)

But, respectfully, I do not really think you and I have much more to say to each other. You clearly will not see the truth in my opinion and I won’t in yours.

Not much more can be said when a person refuses to accept an explanation of ones own religion and chooses to think they understand better than one who practices it themselves.

May God Bless your and keep you safe.

Maria:wave:

 

[Montalban]

Thank you for this answer - I know it got buried in all the rapid fire posting.

Theosis is EXACTLY the same thing. Its a purification here on earth, and you can explain tollhouse, I dont want to.

I dont think I am missing the point but if you think I am help me out.

Maybe Gregoty (sic) Palamas can step in here?

I gotta run now. Think about it. I dont want to argue with you Montalban, I actually like your posts on Islam, and am not trying to fight here.

I don’t know much about the toll-houses. But theosis is not purgatory.

Purgatory is a place where-in a ‘purification’ can take place. This happens after life. It happens because Catholics believe that God needs to be ‘satisfied’ for the hurt we’ve given Him.

““For an adequate satisfaction”, says St. Thomas, “it is necessary that the act of him who satisfies should possess an infinite value and proceed from one who is both God and Man” (III:1:2 ad 2um)”

newadvent.org/cathen/12677d.htm This is much in line with the Jewish idea of ‘sacrifice’ that a payment of proper proportions needs to have been met in order to properly satisfy God.

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

Theosis is Christian life itself; of leading a life of Christ, of becoming like God. Catholic teaching does not teach that we become God. It is not a ‘place’ where a process takes place. It doesn’t happen because God wishes us to be punished for wrong doing.

If anything, the toll-houses are more akin to purgatory than theosis is. Even the way we take part in God’s grace is a different concept from Catholic teaching, viz through uncreated energies.

Gregory of Nyssa

“He was transfused throughout our nature, in order that our nature might by this transfusion of the Divine become itself divine, rescued as it was from death”

The Great Catechism Chapter 25

(aka Oratio Catechetica)

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-39.htm#P3799_2491354

See also

Gregory of Nazianzus

Epistle 101

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-59.htm#P6036_2081330

 

[Montalban]

(Unless otherwise stated) I’m going to extensively quote here from Vladimir Lossky [1] although slightly out of order from the way he states the case in his book/

“It would be possible to draw up two sets of texts taken from the Bible and the Fathers, contradictory to one another; the fist to show the inaccessible character of the divine nature, the second asserting that God does communicate Himself, and be known experimentally, and can really be attained to in union” (p68).

This is because God is both knowable, and unknowable. Knowing God is essential to being united with God.

"…to know the mystery of the Trinity in its fullness is to enter into perfect union with God and attain to the deification of the human creature: in other words, to enter into the divine life, the very life of the Holy Trinity, and to become, in St. Peter’s words*, “partakers of the divine nature”. (p67)

*He is referring to Peter’s explicit words in 2 Peter 1:4 which states…

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”

“Trinitarian theology is thus a theology of union, a mystical theology which appeals to experience, and which presupposes a continuous and progressive series of changes in created nature, a more and more intimate communion of the human person with the Holy Trinity” (p67)

How is this union achieved? Let’s look at the possibility of being united with God’s ‘essence’.

“If we were able at a given moment to be united to the very essence of God and to participate in it even in the very least degree, we should not at the moment be what we are, we should be God by nature. God would no longer be Trinity, but ‘of myriads of hypostases’; for He would have as many hypostases as there are persons participating in His essence.” (pp69-70)

As to God being unchanging. It is logical that God must have been God before the beginning, before there was anything else but God. So that even though He didn’t have anything to relate to as God, He was still God.

We related to God through the known God who is Jesus Christ. “He grants to human hypostases the possibility to participate in that which constitutes His very life: true humanity and true divinity united in a single hypostasis. That participation in turn transforms fallen human nature into his human nature. At the same time, because our participation in Him is hypostatic and not merely essential - we commune in His Person, in His Body, and not merely in an abstract nature - we have access to His divinity and can participate fully in it. Through such participation - in His humanity and in His divinity - our own humanity is restored to the “Adamic” state in which it was created” [2]

(con’t.)

 

[Montalban]

And as God is changeless, He is ‘passionless’ (or hesychia). The use of metaphors such as God’s ‘wrath’ are mere motivators to people of a particular mind. [3]

God doesn’t change. He doesn’t seek retribution (or ‘satisfaction’) for evils. We can partake in and commune with God, but not in His essence. We therefore are transformed through His energies, which, because God doesn’t change, were not ‘created’ energies.

" And that was that the Word of God Himself-Who is before all worlds, the Invisible, the Incomprehensible, the Bodiless, Beginning of Beginning, the Light of Light, the Source of Life and Immortality, the Image of the Archetypal Beauty, the immovable Seal, the unchangeable Image, the Father’s Definition and Word, came to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man. Conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost (for it was needful both that Childbearing should be honoured, and that Virginity should receive a higher honour), He came forth then as God with that which He had assumed, One Person in two Natures, Flesh and Spirit, of which the latter deified the former. O new commingling; O strange conjunction; the Self-Existent comes into being, the Uncreate is created, That which cannot be contained is contained, by the intervention of an intellectual soul, mediating between the Deity and the corporeity of the flesh. And He Who gives riches becomes poor, for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may assume the richness of His Godhead. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness. What is the riches of His Goodness? What is this mystery that is around me? I had a share in the image; I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the image and make the flesh immortal. He communicates a second Communion far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better Nature, whereas now Himself partakes of the worse. This is more godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding."

Gregory the Theologian** [4]

Oration 38:XIII

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-50.htm#P4866_1592851

**sometimes referred to as Gregory of Nazianzus or Gregory Nazianzen

References/Endnotes

[1] Lossky, V., (2002) “The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church”, (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press; Crestwood, New York).

[2] Breck, J., (2001) “Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church”, (St. Vladimirs Seminary Press; Crestwood, New York), p193.

[3] St. Theophan the Recluse, (1998) “The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transformation”, (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood)

See especially “Living Communion with God occurs in a state of Hesychia, which brings Passionlessness” (p319ff)

[4] a slightly different translation is to be found in Carlton, C., (1997), “The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity”, Regina Orthodox Press, Salisbury, MA), p110

Now you together are Christ’s body; but each of you is a different part of it.
—St. Paul, I Cor.12.27

 

[Montalban]

That is the Catholic teaching on purgatory!

Good Lord, are you honestly incapable of grasping this?!?

What I have grasped is you continue to portray ‘purgatory’ as a number of things, based on your opinion of what it means. You continue to avoid dealing with the evidence I present. You simply appeal that I just don’t understand Catholic teaching on this, then give me your opinion, which forgive me if I don’t simply submit to as being Catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching is clear. God is upset by us sinning. Whether He’s now content by Jesus’ sacrifice or not is beside the point. Simply put, God was content, then He wasn’t. He changed. He’s therefore not perfect (becasuse God never changes).

Listen to what we’re saying!

Did you actually read post # 586?

I’ve appealed to you to discuss what I’ve said, and you now reduce yourself to insults.

You complained that God must die. God, per se didn’t die, only man did. Whether his dying (as man) saves our spirit or not is not the issue. You argued against Catholic teachings on how He died. If you can’t keep to an argument, you should try not to project such hostility onto others. In that post (you cited) you have modified your position.

It supports purgatory just like it supports your view too.

Then it’s not as conclusive evidence as you’d like to have made out when you first used it.

That is the problem with your posts. You presented John Chrysostomon as a definitive support for purgatory. Now you admit he may not have been supporting purgatory, because he could just as easily be supporting something else.

I continue to implore you to address the evidence regarding a hurt God. You simply repeat that Jesus healed that hurt; that God is now satisfied. None of that negates the fact this still makes God someone who changed, from being satisfied, to being unsatisfied.

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.

That’s not what YOU said. You said God died. You were trying to argue that God does change.

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.

We have no common ground on this. That’s the point. The Orthodox view is not the same as the Catholic view. Your own personal opinion otherwise does not make it so.

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.

I can if they’re different views

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

That’s not the point at all. Purgatory is an establishment to punish. The toll-houses are not. The difference between helping someone across the street and throwing them in jail is similar. One can argue that a person is thrown in jail so as not to harm themselves; it’s for their own good. But it’s still a vastly different act than helping them across the street.

 

[Damascus]

Thanks Montalban, for the reply!

Sorry I missed it right away. Can I tell you something? Dont be so quick to say Catholics dont do theosis. You may find yourself in a pickle.

Have you heard of Josemaria Escriva? He did not invent it, by any means-
I only ask because many people have basic knowledge of him.

We are called to be saints Montalban.

I will get some sleep and get you more “proof” that in fact, theosis is a very Catholic thing, its not as you may have been led to believe an “eastern orthodox only” thing. Certainly, I think EOC do make it far more clear to their flock what it means, and stress it —no quibbles there!

I humbly submit to your understanding but beg to differ. We are all called to holiness, to be a saint. (sounds mormonish if you dont get it LOL)

I think Gregory P should post, I should PM him to join the thread if he would.

he is much better at explaining things. the ladder of divine ascent, is what we all should be working on, certainly. One can see it as a struggle, another a punishment to climb it, we all see it differently, but its not as different as you think – we are not as different as you think we are.

 

[Montalban]

Thanks Montalban, for the reply!

You’re most welcome.

Sorry I missed it right away. Can I tell you something? Don’t be so quick to say Catholics don’t do theosis. You may find yourself in a pickle.

Have you heard of Josemaria Escriva?

No.

He did not invent it, by any means-
I only ask because many people have basic knowledge of him.

We are called to be saints Montalban.

I will get some sleep and get you more “proof” that in fact, theosis is a very Catholic thing, its not as you may have been led to believe an “eastern orthodox only” thing. Certainly, I think EOC do make it far more clear to their flock what it means, and stress it —no quibbles there!

I humbly submit to your understanding but beg to differ. We are all called to holiness, to be a saint. (sounds mormonish if you don’t get it LOL)

I think Gregory P should post, I should PM him to join the thread if he would.

he is much better at explaining things. the ladder of divine ascent, is what we all should be working on, certainly. One can see it as a struggle, another a punishment to climb it, we all see it differently, but its not as different as you think – we are not as different as you think we are.

The idea that Catholics are to become God through God’s uncreated energies would be a surprise to me, as it is my understanding that Catholics don’t draw a distinction between God’s essence and energies.

And, no one here as yet been able to tell me why Catholics believe that God needed to be satisfied.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Montalban:

We have no common ground on this. That’s the point. The Orthodox view is not the same as the Catholic view.

That’s because you don’t want it that way Montalban.

You don’t want to have a common ground with Catholics on this.

You would rather burn in your anger and spit and curse at the Catholic faith instead of actually making an effort to see where we’re coming from.

Even more so, you would just sit back feeling smug and justified that you can hold a grudge against the Catholic church for the crimes that we Catholics did against the Orthodox when we ransacked Constantinople for example.

No. You don’t really care about much of anything that we do, except hating us and trying to twist our explanations around so that you can have even more reasons to hate us.

And, regardles of what we say, you’ll do your best to twist that around too-- so that you can have even more reasons to hate us than ever before.

Montalban, my brother in Christ, if you do not do what is right then sin is crouching at your door. It desires to have you, but you must master it.
Matthew 5:22:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

I am praying that you master it and that it does not sift you like wheat. If you do what is right, then you will be accepted. I’ll trust the Lord on this one.

Good bye.

 

[Montalban]

That’s because you don’t want it that way Montalban.

You don’t want to have a common ground with Catholics on this.

That about sums up the majority of your posts.

You would rather burn in your anger and spit and curse at the Catholic faith instead of actually making an effort to see where we’re coming from.

More projection. I don’t curse the Catholic faith at all, but if it helps you to think so, and thus continue to avoid addressing any evidence I present, then so be it. For several days now all I’ve got from you are appeals to incredulity, insults and emotive statements. Adding your own infallible opinions here and there doesn’t help either.

I am still interested in discussion. But please present somethign other than “oh you just don’t want to understand us”.

 

[Montalban]

Mr. Ex Nihilo has raised the issue of God being imperfect. That He needed to be satisfied. Any other Catholics agree with this?