Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

[jim1130]

How is it not like jail? Is it more like celebrity rehabilitation (aka, meaning you go for fanfare, but nothing substantive occurs).

Jail is a punishment, Purgatory is not. Getting cleaned up is not the same as being punished. Purgatory, in fact, should be a very happy state. You’re on your way to Heaven and nothing is stopping you! The only suffering comes from being close but not being there yet, kind of like Dec. 23rd for little kids. Suffering comes in the waiting, yes, but it is far outshined by the knowledge of what you’re about to experience.

Many non-Catholics and Catholics think of purgatory as a place. Purgatory is not a place, it is a process.

CCC 1031 - “final purification of the elect” and “cleansing fire.”

 

[ckempston]

Many non-Catholics and Catholics think of purgatory as a place. Purgatory is not a place, it is a process.

CCC 1031 - “final purification of the elect” and “cleansing fire.”

It is not possible for a process to take place nowhere, and quite frankly, it doesn’t matter if it is a process or a place. If it is not a place, then it doesn’t make much sense to refer to a soul that is “in” purgatory, because you can’t be “in” somewhere that doesn’t exist. Even if you call it a process, the question can reasonably be asked: “Where is the process completed?” It is obviously not “with” God yet, so it must be somewhere else.

 

[adrift]

I think you are seriously misunderstanding this passage.

I stand by my statement that Jesus pays all, up to, and including, the last penny.

Of course you believe I misunderstand just as I believe you misunderstand. You are right to consider the context and not just a single line. The context however is damaging to you. It does give a direction on how to be righteous. It does say that righteousness must surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. But you are incorrect in what it means.

Righteousness here, as usually in Matthew, means conduct in conformity with God’s will.

This is consistent with the context of the chapter. Yours interpretation however is no where supported in the chapter. Nowhere does Jesus infer that the Pharisees cannot be surpassed in fact He says they must be. The Pharisees conformity with God’s will is often condemned by Jesus.
Take a look at what the scripture before says

 Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,

24
leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.

It becomes clear than that you may stand by what you wrote but it is inconsistent with scripture. You cannot support that Jesus is saying that He paid the last penny. But it is clear that somehow we must before we enter heaven because Jesus says so.

1 Cor 3:11-15
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
1 Pet 1:7
The genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus implies that our sins can be forgiven in the next world.

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

 

[ckempston]

Of course you believe I misunderstand just as I believe you misunderstand. You are right to consider the context and not just a single line. The context however is damaging to you. It does give a direction on how to be righteous. It does say that righteousness must surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. But you are incorrect in what it means.

Are you more righteous than the Pharisees? If so, how?

This is consistent with the context of the chapter. Yours interpretation however is no where supported in the chapter. Nowhere does Jesus infer that the Pharisees cannot be surpassed in fact He says they must be. The Pharisees conformity with God’s will is often condemned by Jesus.
Take a look at what the scripture before says

It becomes clear than that you may stand by what you wrote but it is inconsistent with scripture. You cannot support that Jesus is saying that He paid the last penny. But it is clear that somehow we must before we enter heaven because Jesus says so.

Actually, I’ll contend that this passage has nothing to do with judgment whatsoever. Jesus makes no analogy to the final judgment or the afterlife, so I would say forcing this interpretation here is unwarranted in the first place.

 

[jfallaw]

Maybe for the same reason that I won’t ‘argue’ with a trained protestant Theologian or apologist- I probably wouldn’t understand what they were saying for one, and even so, i still wouldn’t believe anything they said contrary to the Catholic church. So what would be the point?

 

[jim1130]

Many non-Catholics and Catholics think of purgatory as a place. Purgatory is not a place, it is a process.

CCC 1031 - “final purification of the elect” and “cleansing fire.”

It is not possible for a process to take place nowhere, and quite frankly, it doesn’t matter if it is a process or a place. If it is not a place, then it doesn’t make much sense to refer to a soul that is “in” purgatory, because you can’t be “in” somewhere that doesn’t exist. Even if you call it a process, the question can reasonably be asked: “Where is the process completed?” It is obviously not “with” God yet, so it must be somewhere else.

Is this like “you are in a movie, but on TV?”

Purgatory is a purging, it is a process, a “cleansing fire,” since sin cannot enter heaven. A soul is being cleansed. How long? For that, I have no answer. Each cleansing process is separate from the other.

Here is the CCC in its entirety: 1031 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 nor 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.

 

[adrift]

Are you more righteous than the Pharisees? If so, how?

Actually, I’ll contend that this passage has nothing to do with judgment whatsoever. Jesus makes no analogy to the final judgment or the afterlife, so I would say forcing this interpretation here is unwarranted in the first place.

I didn’t say that I was more righteous. Jesus said we should be meaning we should follow God’s will. Jesus often condemned what the Pharisees did. Do I try and fail to follow the will of God? Oh yes. Your statement is incorrect. Jesus is referring to judgment. It is my opinion that you are forcing an interpretation here that is unwarranted in the first place.

Nobody can surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees, which was Jesus’ point. To the people listening to Jesus, they would have been thinking, “How is it possible to surpass the righteousness of the PHarisees?” The answer, of course, is that we are declared righteous in God’s sight, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not by our own actions.

 

[bookgirl32]

I appreciate your humility, and hope we can continue an amiable discussion.

I see where you are coming from, but I would refer to what you’re describing as “consequences” instead of punishment. Punishment can certainly be a consequence, but a consequence is not always punishment (if that makes sense). I see consequences as just cause/effect based on natural law rather than divine retribution.

If I am unfaithful to my wife, and a child results, I can be forgiven of the sin, but the consequence of a child being born is there, basically forever.

The problem is, I have a hard time describing what would happen in Purgatory other than calling it punishment. If it’s just a sort of holding pattern before you land in heaven, what goes on there?

I think you could at least give me this: if we can’t claim to know what’s going to happen in Heaven, just that we know we will be with God forever, how could we any easier claim to know what happens in Purgatory? We know of it’s existence and it’s purpose, just like Heaven, but not the details.

As the exceprt from the ecyclopedia puts it, Moses and Aaron were not allowed into the promised land. My guess is that being so close to Heaven but not yet there, and knowing you’re not yet there because of your own actions, is punishment enough in itself.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sure it does sound like purgatory to most Catholics, because that’s what the Catholic church teaches. Look at the passage in context. What is tested with fire is the “work” of each man, not the man himself. That he will be saved “only as through fire” makes much more sense if taken as a figure of speech, not a literal statement that the person gets burned.

Well actually, I’m not claiming that it has to be taken literally. See what I quoted from Dr. Dragani (post #124).

 

[ckempston]

I didn’t say that I was more righteous.

Then what was your point? Jesus said quite plainly that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. If you say you are not, then you must not be in the Kingdom, because that’s what Jesus said. You said:

Of course you believe I misunderstand just as I believe you misunderstand. You are right to consider the context and not just a single line. The context however is damaging to you. It does give a direction on how to be righteous. It does say that righteousness must surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. But you are incorrect in what it means.

The only way a Christian’s Righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees is because we have a Righteousness from Jesus, not from works of the Law. That is the point. Jesus often made statements like this to illustrate our need for a savior.

I am taking what Jesus says at face value. You are the one who is forcing an interpretation; he is telling us how to live in the Sermon on the Mount, is he not? Almost the whole of chapter 5 is about our interactions with our fellow humans. He talks about adultery, an eye for an eye, divorce, taking oaths, love for your enemy, etc. Nowhere does Jesus suggest his statement on settling matters with adversaries quickly is an analogy to judgment. Point to where he makes such a comparison if you believe he does.

Jesus said we should be meaning we should follow God’s will. Jesus often condemned what the Pharisees did. Do I try and fail to follow the will of God? Oh yes. Your statement is incorrect. Jesus is referring to judgment. It is my opinion that you are forcing an interpretation here that is unwarranted in the first place.

No, he’s not. You’re the one interpreting. I’m just taking Jesus literally (at his word) that he’s referring to settling matters with an adversary, because the context doesn’t warrant, or suggest, a comparison or analogy to judgment.

 

[bookgirl32]

The only way a Christian’s Righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees is because we have a Righteousness from Jesus, not from works of the Law. That is the point. Jesus often made statements like this to illustrate our need for a savior.

I think you’re still thinking Purgatory with all this but I’m going off on a tangent. Also, by SF believers, I do not necessarily mean ckempson b/c I’m not sure of the belief there.

You’re correct in this above statement BUT – He was not just trying to illustrate our need for Him, He was trying to instruct us in what to do with why we did need Him and what He was going to give us. I think where a lot of Sola Fide believers get confused is thinking that the Church thinks that our rightousness is of ourselves. Of course our rightousness is from Jesus. The problem is that we believe that Jesus, once we are saved through Baptism, makes us capable of BEING righteous in Him. Being is a verb, meaning an action of ours. He makes us capable of attaining the righteousness far above the Pharisees. This is where our actions matter. God gives us this gift, made possible to give through His Son’s sacrifice, and we don’t take it and use it? Of course this is what the Sermon on the Mount is about – what to do with this gift of Salvation!!

But again, we see Salvation as a process, with Christ’s sacrifice being the Gift that makes it possible for us to fully achieve this process through Him.

And Sola Fide believers often believe salvation is an object. Catholics: Salvation is a free gift, that gift is a verb. Sola Fide believers: Salvation is a free gift, that gift is a noun.

Almost the whole of chapter 5 is about our interactions with our fellow humans. He talks about adultery, an eye for an eye, divorce, taking oaths, love for your enemy, etc. Nowhere does Jesus suggest his statement on settling matters with adversaries quickly is an analogy to judgment.

Why is He concerned about how we do any of this then?

 

[Peter_J]

The only way a Christian’s Righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees is because we have a Righteousness from Jesus, not from works of the Law. That is the point. Jesus often made statements like this to illustrate our need for a savior.

 

[adrift]

Then what was your point? Jesus said quite plainly that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. If you say you are not, then you must not be in the Kingdom, because that’s what Jesus said. You said:

You are asking me to judge that is not my providence. Jesus said we must attain righteousness more than what the Pharisees attained. When we are judged it will be on our righteousness. Judgment is not for me to decide nor you but what Jesus outlines is how we should live. “judge not least you be judge”

The only way a Christian’s Righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees is because we have a Righteousness from Jesus, not from works of the Law. That is the point. Jesus often made statements like this to illustrate our need for a savior.

So you have changed your mind that we can surpass the Righteousness of the Pharisee?

I am taking what Jesus says at face value You are the one who is forcing an interpretation;

.
But that is the problem you don’t take it at face value. Jesus said we should be perfect and that we wouldn’t get to heaven without the last penny being paid. You force an interpretation that he is speaking of Him paying. Yet you cannot point to a verse in this chapter that says that.

he is telling us how to live in the Sermon on the Mount, is he not? Almost the whole of chapter 5 is about our interactions with our fellow humans. He talks about adultery, an eye for an eye, divorce, taking oaths, love for your enemy, etc. Nowhere does Jesus suggest his statement on settling matters with adversaries quickly is an analogy to judgment. Point to where he makes such a comparison if you believe he does.

I have pointed it out many times. What is paid if not judgment?

No, he’s not. You’re the one interpreting. I’m just taking Jesus literally (at his word) that he’s referring to settling matters with an adversary, because the context doesn’t warrant, or suggest, a comparison or analogy to judgment.

That is your interpretation which does not take literally Jesus’ word. It is more than just settling with an adversary

Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

Who do you think Jesus was referring to when he said Judge? Released from what? You do not address these answers within the context or the literal meaning of Jesus. Of course, I believe the answer is a purging we must undergo in order to be perfect.

 

[ckempston]

I think you’re still thinking Purgatory with all this but I’m going off on a tangent. Also, by SF believers, I do not necessarily mean ckempson b/c I’m not sure of the belief there.

Thanks for not assuming. I don’t believe in Sola Fide.

You’re correct in this above statement BUT – He was not just trying to illustrate our need for Him, He was trying to instruct us in what to do with why we did need Him and what He was going to give us. I think where a lot of Sola Fide believers get confused is thinking that the Church thinks that our rightousness is of ourselves. Of course our rightousness is from Jesus. The problem is that we believe that Jesus, once we are saved through Baptism, makes us capable of BEING righteous in Him. Being is a verb, meaning an action of ours. He makes us capable of attaining the righteousness far above the Pharisees. This is where our actions matter. God gives us this gift, made possible to give through His Son’s sacrifice, and we don’t take it and use it? Of course this is what the Sermon on the Mount is about – what to do with this gift of Salvation!!

But again, we see Salvation as a process, with Christ’s sacrifice being the Gift that makes it possible for us to fully achieve this process through Him.

And Sola Fide believers often believe salvation is an object. Catholics: Salvation is a free gift, that gift is a verb. Sola Fide believers: Salvation is a free gift, that gift is a noun.

I happen to not believe in Sola Fide. It is, of course, not in the Bible. Odd since only those who believe in Sola Scriptura believe in the extra-biblical doctrine of Sola Fide.

Why is He concerned about how we do any of this then?

I see where you’re going with this, and ultimately, all of Jesus’ teachings are admittedly about our relationship with God. However, I see a difference between a teaching on righteous action, and a parable or analogy (e.g. “the Kingdom of heaven is like…”, etc.)

 

[ckempston]

You are asking me to judge that is not my providence. Jesus said we must attain righteousness more than what the Pharisees attained. When we are judged it will be on our righteousness. Judgment is not for me to decide nor you but what Jesus outlines is how we should live. “judge not least you be judge”

I think we’ll be judged on Jesus’ Righteousness; otherwise, we’d all be going to Hell. That’s my view of Judgment (and I think it’s Biblical).

So you have changed your mind that we can surpass the Righteousness of the Pharisee?

Through Jesus, of course. According to Jesus, we’re all greater than John the Baptist himself.
.

But that is the problem you don’t take it at face value. Jesus said we should be perfect and that we wouldn’t get to heaven without the last penny being paid. You force an interpretation that he is speaking of Him paying. Yet you cannot point to a verse in this chapter that says that.

Actually, I’ve recanted and taken the position that this doesn’t refer to judgment at all. I’d say I was mistaken.

I have pointed it out many times. What is paid if not judgment?

Jesus is the propitiation of our sins, original and actual. If we still have to pay for sins after death, in my view, this plain teaching of scripture is contradicted.

That is your interpretation which does not take literally Jesus’ word. It is more than just settling with an adversary
Who do you think Jesus was referring to when he said Judge? Released from what? You do not address these answers within the context or the literal meaning of Jesus. Of course, I believe the answer is a purging we must undergo in order to be perfect.

Jesus is referring to a very real situation that would have taken place in his day, and he in no way indicates he’s speaking a parable.

 

[adrift]

I

Jesus is the propitiation of our sins, original and actual. If we still have to pay for sins after death, in my view, this plain teaching of scripture is contradicted.

1 Cor 3:11-15
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
1 Pet 1:7
The genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus implies that our sins can be forgiven in the next world.

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

Jesus is referring to a very real situation that would have taken place in his day, and he in no way indicates he’s speaking a parable.

Jesus always spoke in parables I see no reason why this is not a parable also. I find it strange that it was a comment to a real situation. That doesn’t make sense with the rest of the discourse:shrug:

 

[ckempston]

1 Cor 3:11-15
For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

We’ve discussed this scripture to exhaustion. Look at the last sentence. What is “burned up?” It is not the person, but the work.

1 Pet 1:7
The genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

“Tested by fire” is a clear allusion to persecutions in this lifetime, not purgation in the afterlife.

Jesus implies that our sins can be forgiven in the next world.

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

OK. How does this prove purgatory? As I stated elsewhere, Jesus could very well snap his fingers or dance the jig, and voila, we’re forgiven. This doesn’t explicitly, or even very strongly implicitly, support purgatory.

Jesus always spoke in parables I see no reason why this is not a parable also. I find it strange that it was a comment to a real situation. That doesn’t make sense with the rest of the discourse:shrug:

Jesus did not always speak in parables. A parable is a story that illustrates a divine truth. The Sermon on the Mount is not a story, but instructions in living Righteously:

Do not murder, do not be angry, forgive, settle your debts, do not commit adultery, do not lust, etc., etc.

These are not parables, they are moral teachings.

 

[SSTeacher]

Don’t get confused about something needing to be declared as official doctrine in response to a heretical charge against it with creating new doctrine. At the council of Trent they had to officially state the canon in response to reformers who were claiming that books accepted as part of the canon for the past 1000 - 1200 were never really part of it. That doesn’t mean that they added those books, they were simply officially protecting what had already been there. Make sense?

Yes, certainly.

Just because the doctrine of Purgatory was officially preserved at one point in time does not mean it was not in existence until that point in time.

Well, I agree that purgatory either exists or it doesn’t.

Secondly, purgatory is in NO WAY a temporary Hell. Hell is Hell b/c you are without God for eternity, no longer with any chance to change your situation. God is with you in Purgatory, just not in the same way that He is in Heaven (just as God is with us now on Earth, etc.) Purgatory is a purge, a cleaning, not a punishment. The suffering comes into play in that you are very close to Heaven, just not there yet. It is not possible for the stains of sin to enter Heaven, therefore Purgatory. It might feel like a punishment (I don’t know, never been there), but that is not it’s intention.

This is very detailed information.

Purge and punish are not the same things.

Agreed, but the pain will be just as real, methinks.

I think even moreso than some of the apologists books you’re seeking out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would help you quite a bit!

I’ve purchased a Catechism of the Catholic Church and intend to read it so perhaps I’ll eventually become an expert.

(I know, I keep suggesting more books, sorry )

More books doesn’t warrant any apology. More books means JOY.

Convivially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

One more thing: Christ didn’t make it crystal clear in the Bible. But you’re kind of over needing it to BE crystal clear in the Bible, aren’t you?

Perhaps you’re right.

To me He made it very crystal clear through the authority of His Church, which speaks not only through the Bible, but through Sacred Tradition as well.

And I respect that.

Peacefully,
Mick

 

[joshua_b]

If I may jump in here for a minute…

I think the biggest problem non-Catholics have with the doctrine of purgatory is that they always want to think of it as some sort of “mini-hell” that must be endured before being allowed in God’s presence.

Scripture tells us that to be in the presence of God we must be completely holy and perfect. In order for this to happen our works must be tested as put through fire, and some will suffer loss (forgive me for butchering the verse), we must be washed in teh blood of the lamb, and we must put on the white robe of righteousness that is Christ. Catholics call this process of cleansing “purgatory”. For all we know, it COULD happen at the snap of Jesus’ finger…it could be instantaneous.

I fail to see why purgatory has to be viewed so negatively, even if someone doesn’t believe in it. EVERYONE in/going through purgatory is SAVED and will ultimately be in heaven in God’s full and glorious presence!!! The Church has always maintained that the reason for purgatory is to cleanse us to perfection, in accord with Scripture. There is very little “technical” infallible teaching about how exactly this all works, how long it may last, etc. The Church DOES maintain that there is suffering in purgatory, but makes no claim as to what type of suffering. The closest I ever got to an official answer on this was from Sr. Catherine (God rest her soul), a very pious woman who was undoubtedly devoted completely to Jesus. Her response was that a) we know there is great suffering in purgatory, but we don’t really know what that means, and b) the souls in purgatory are awaiting their chance to be in the presence of God. Even if the process is instantaneous, I can only imagine the instant we are waiting to stand in the true presence of God in His full glory would most certainly be the most torturous instant of existence.