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

[ckempston]

I’m enjoying the current discussion about Purgatory (kudos to those who’ve been contributing), but technically it is off topic for the thread, and should perhaps be split out on its own.

Returning to the OP, I can postulate one reason why Protestants wouldn’t make a large effort to address the writings of an apologist whether from CAF or elsewhere. If they were to take the time and effort to do so, and if they were successful in identifying holes in the apologist’s argument, such an effort would likely be met with the following Catholic response:

It doesn’t matter if there’s a problem in the apologist’s writing because the apologist:

a) isn’t the Pope and thus has no claim to infallibility, even if they are discussing a doctrine that has been infallibly defined;

b) isn’t part of the Magisterium and thus not an authority for promulgating doctrine in the church, therefore the apologist’s explanation may be wrong without invalidating the doctrine;

c) isn’t providing any more than his or her private interpretation and thus we aren’t bound by it.

Since finding a hole in the writings of an apologist would provide little to no benefit in holding Catholic doctrine up for inspection or evaluation, it’s not surprise that many Protestants simply don’t bother to do so.

Thoughts?

BINGO!!!

 

[guanophore]

I was born into a Catholic family, as I got older and left home and began my search, I was “converted” when I was met by, and studied with, someone from the International Churches of Christ, aka Boston Movement, aka Crossroads Church of Christ, etc., etc., etc. Those keywords should give you plenty of reading material, but for the record, I don’t agree with their practices or doctrines 100%. I’m just a poor wayfaring stranger wherever I go.

Hopefully that spells out where I’m at pretty clearly.

EDIT: As far as what I’m reverting to, I haven’t quite figured that out yet.

Glad you are here ckemp. I was born into a Catholic family, and when I got older. left it. It turns out I did not understand what the Church taught, and erroneously judged the Church for the fallible actions of people.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s a pretty sorry attempt at justifying Purgatory with the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).

The works are burned up;

Actually, this is not an attempt to “justify” the doctrine of purgatory. The Catholic Church does not need to use Scripture to “justify” the doctrines of the faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire, delivered to the Apostles by Christ before a word of the NT was ever written. Protestants need to “justify” their beliefs from the Bible because they rejected the authority appointed by Christ to keep and propogate the faith.

this does not support temporal punishment in any way. This says nothing about fire touching the person at all. Man, that was easy.

I always marvel when I read statments like this. I think people that make them have never had to escape from a house fire, or suffered the loss of their personal work or belongings from fire. I can assure you, it very much “touches the person” in every way.

Another thing is, why would one think that one’s “works” have nothing to do with the person? They are the fruit of our vine!

yet another paragaph that draws conclusions not supported by a passage:

CATHOLIC: I agree that we cannot say that everything present in Judaism before Christ is something that applies to our state after Christ. Even so, the indication in Maccabees of purification after death is not a precept but a belief, and so it is not in the same category as dietary laws. Furthermore, the New Testament shows a continuity with this idea. For example, Matthew 12:32 says that some people who sin “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This suggests that there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death, then this passage doesn’t make much sense.

Forgiveness in the age to come suggests absolutely nothing about a purgation process after death. It could be that Jesus just snaps his fingers.

You are right, all we know for sure is that we must be purified to enter heaven. Whatever imperfections we have at death will need to be burned away. This could happen instantly. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are not in the space time continuum.

 

[ckempston]

Actually, this is not an attempt to “justify” the doctrine of purgatory. The Catholic Church does not need to use Scripture to “justify” the doctrines of the faith. The Catholic faith was whole and entire, delivered to the Apostles by Christ before a word of the NT was ever written. Protestants need to “justify” their beliefs from the Bible because they rejected the authority appointed by Christ to keep and propogate the faith.

Since, based on my understanding, which could be wrong, Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, I think your statement that the church does not need to “justify” doctrines using it is incorrect. If it is not needed, then why is an apologist on a Catholic website doing it? That’s where I got that from: catholic.com.

I always marvel when I read statments like this. I think people that make them have never had to escape from a house fire, or suffered the loss of their personal work or belongings from fire. I can assure you, it very much “touches the person” in every way.

I tend to think of it as more like Meshach, Shadrach, and Abenego in the fiery furnace.

Another thing is, why would one think that one’s “works” have nothing to do with the person? They are the fruit of our vine!

If you destroy my car, it’s an inconvenience, but you did not “hurt” me personally.

You are right, all we know for sure is that we must be purified to enter heaven. Whatever imperfections we have at death will need to be burned away. This could happen instantly. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are not in the space time continuum.

I would question your statement that they are outside time. They may experience time differently, but humans require the passage of time to “experience” anything, including Heaven. Only God is outside of time.

 

[guanophore]

But am I right in asserting that the existence of purgatory wasn’t declared as doctrine in the West until well after the Schism of 1054?

Declarations are made to counter rampant heresies. For example, the word Trinity, not found in Scripture, was not used for some time, but was “declared” to combat heresies that had emerged (gnosticism and the roots of arianism). The decalaration does not mean that it was not held as a doctrine of the faith previously.

The Eastern Orthodox Church insists that purgatory does not exist and that fact is certainly a consideration for an inquirer like me. However, I’m trying to get my mind around the Catholic understanding of purgatory.

MOst of the differences between the eastern and western Church result from differences in language and culture. The Eastern Churches also agree that we must all be made pure before we enter heaven, and we are not necessarily pure when we die.

It seems to me that purgatory is perhaps best described as a “temporary hell.” It hurts like hell but it won’t last forever, some might say. In Catholic thought, then, purgatory is a place where people are purged – that is, they are punished for the bad things that they did while they lived on earth.

It would be more accurate to call it a ‘state’ rather than a place. Heaven, hell, Purgatory, etc. exist outside the space time continuum.

Purgatory is not intended to be “punishment” but purification. However, some of us are quite attached to our sinful ways, and separation from them is painful. Remember the rich man who went away sorrowful after Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor? He was attached,

When they’re completely purged, they can progress into heaven.

Well, if I’ve got that right, it seems to follow that the best a Catholic can hope for after death – assuming he or she doesn’t get martyred, which I’m led to believe is the only route by which a sane adult Catholic may gain direct entry into heaven at the point of his or her death –

Catholics believe that baptism completely washes all temporal and original sin, as well as the consequences of those.

is to be sent away by God to suffer for an indeterminate but presumably lengthy time in a temporary hell.

It is not “sent away” by God. In fact, it has been said that one of the reasons the purgation is painful is the intense longing of those being purified to be with the Lord. In HIs love, He separates everything in us that might prevet us from Him. We can elect to have this done in this life, or it will be done in the next, but it will be done.

The thing is – assuming I’ve correctly grasped all the implications of the doctrine – this simply doesn’t sound like good news. I guess what I’m struggling with is the fact that Christ didn’t make it crystal–clear that there is this intermediary place after death that most people can count on heading for.

Well, none of us should aim short! We should all strive for perfect purification here and now!

The doctrine wasn’t developed until centuries after Christ walked the earth.

This is not true. This is one of the beliefs that the Church inherited from the Jews. You can read about it in the book of Maccabees.

That doesn’t necessarily make the doctrine wrong.  But it does make it rather more difficult to believe.  Have you ever had doubts about this doctrine based on the thought process I’ve just outlined?

Do you also find the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday, and the canon of the NT “hard to believe”? All of these came after the doctrine of purgatory, which was clear during the intertestamental period.

 

[bookgirl32]

No, Jesus says quite clearly, “by their fruit” that we will know his disciples; not by their teaching or who they claim to follow on earth but, “by their love for one another.” On these grounds, I have a difficult time reconciling Catholic claims with the church’s actions throughout history.

So you mean the scripture writers were personally and completely infallible their whole lives? By their fruits we would know that are Christ’s disciples, not by their fruits they would demonstrate the truthfullness of Christ’s Church. All you just did with quoting that was confirm what Guanaphore said, that infallibility does not in anyway mean that popes, personally, are infallible. It’s basically like this: the gospel writers were not infallible constantly, throughout their lives, but God made them infallible when they spoke as gospel writers. Same with the Pope. When he speaks ex cathedra he speaks infallibly. By your opinion and refusal to accept our reasoning, I’d think you DID believe in Sola Scriptura, b/c you’re basically saying the only humans ever speaking infallibly were scripture writers.

 

[guanophore]

Please look at the verses that were posted as eidence FOR purgatory. REad them ask yourself are they about prugatory?
It is another Catholic attempt to read a doctrine into the scripture rather than allow a doctrine to be defined by scripture. Do not be decieved.

This is silly, Hisalone. Catholics have no need to “read into” the Scripture. The NT was produced by, for, and about Catholics. It contains completely Catholic doctrine and practice.

Our fith is not “defined by scripture”. This is an error that came about during the Refomation, in an effort to replace the authority tht Christ appointed to govern the Church with some other 'authority". Catholic doctrine was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. It was the Catholic Church that defined the Scripture!

All Catholic doctrine comes from Christ, through the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

The Apostles were baptized by the Holy Spirit and Fire, yet they were completely unharmed by the process. It was not a “purgation” as purgatory is supposed to be. They did not suffer.

If you really believe this, then you are not reading the NT. The Apostles underwent intense suffering. Most of them were martyrd
for their faith.

2 Cor 11:22-29
23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one - I am talking like a madman - with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

I don’t see how anyone can read this, and think that this man did not experience intense suffering.

 

[ckempston]

So you mean the scripture writers were personally and completely infallible their whole lives? By their fruits we would know that are Christ’s disciples, not by their fruits they would demonstrate the truthfullness of Christ’s Church. All you just did with quoting that was confirm what Guanaphore said, that infallibility does not in anyway mean that popes, personally, are infallible. It’s basically like this: the gospel writers were not infallible constantly, throughout their lives, but God made them infallible when they spoke as gospel writers. Same with the Pope. When he speaks ex cathedra he speaks infallibly. By your opinion and refusal to accept our reasoning, I’d think you DID believe in Sola Scriptura, b/c you’re basically saying the only humans ever speaking infallibly were scripture writers.

Guanophore said:

It is certainly true that there have been many corrupt persons who called themselves Catholic and committed atrocities. However, judging the Teaching of the church by those who fail to follow it makes about as much sense as saying Jesus taught poorly because Judas betrayed Him.

My comment was in response to this. My point was that there is only so much “corruption” that can be tolerated before one rejects the authority of the corrupt. Nowhere did I say only the authors of scripture are infallable. You cannot seriously compare the actions of some leaders of the Catholic church in history to the Apostles. You don’t see Paul, after his conversion, commanding Christians to wage war on those who wouldn’t “get in line.”

 

[ckempston]

If you really believe this, then you are not reading the NT. The Apostles underwent intense suffering. Most of them were martyrd
for their faith.

Come on! This is ridiculous. You’re confusing two subjects: purgatory and “testing by fire” through trials during this lifetime, which is what the verse in question was referring to: testing in this lifetime. The verse does not in any way imply an application to the afterlife.

2 Cor 11:22-29
23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one - I am talking like a madman - with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

I don’t see how anyone can read this, and think that this man did not experience intense suffering.

Simple question: did the suffering occur in purgatory, or in this lifetime? You are seriously confusing two different subjects. Every time “fire” is mentioned in the New Testament, you seem to be thinking hell or purgatory. That’s not at all correct.

 

[guanophore]

1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the **souls in Purgatory. **

This, from the Catechism, seems to clearly state that those in Purgatory are being punished.

You do agree, do you not that there are temporal consequences of sin? Although Jesus forgives our sins when we ask Him, He does not always remove the consequences. Sometimes He allows us to pay the consequences for our purification For example, If I get a speeding ticket, I can be forgiven by God for failing to render unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar, and being a poor steward of the resources He has given me. He will forgive me, but I will still have to settle the ticket. He does not always take away the consequence of our wrongdoing. This is for our ultimate benefit, though. It is like the punishment of a child, it is discipline to help the child learn and grow, not to inflict them with unnecessary pain.

 

[Peter_J]

I tend to think of it as more like Meshach, Shadrach, and Abenego in the fiery furnace.

I like that image. A person’s works may be “burned up” in Purgatory, but that needn’t mean that the person experiences it as “punishment”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, I agree. Those in Christ, though, are no longer under condemnation, so we are spared “divine retribution”. He chastizes us as sons whom He has received. He cleanses us so that we can be in his presence forever. This cleansing might be painful.

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.

This is an excellent example of a temporal consequence of sin.

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?

The same thing that goes on here. We are purified of all that is in us that is not of God. Whatever is unfinished at death must be finished before we enter heaven, as nothing unclean can enter heaven. Would you not agree that some believers die suddenly in a less than perfect state?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think it makes for sense to think of it as a “state” of being purified. We begin this process of sanctification when we are born again. God is faithful, and will bring it to completion, in this life, or the next.

We are “with” God now, and we do not stop being “with” Him when we pass from this life. However, to the extent that there remain any impurities in us, our union with Him is incomplete. We must be spotless.

 

[ckempston]

You do agree, do you not that there are temporal consequences of sin? Although Jesus forgives our sins when we ask Him, He does not always remove the consequences. Sometimes He allows us to pay the consequences for our purification For example, If I get a speeding ticket, I can be forgiven by God for failing to render unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar, and being a poor steward of the resources He has given me. He will forgive me, but I will still have to settle the ticket. He does not always take away the consequence of our wrongdoing. This is for our ultimate benefit, though. It is like the punishment of a child, it is discipline to help the child learn and grow, not to inflict them with unnecessary pain.

I agree, but this does not jive with the definition of Purgatory. Furthermore, the Catechism, in numerous places, does not call what goes on in Purgatory consequnces, but temporal punishment. Let’s call a spade a spade.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, because we are the righteousness of God in Christ. His blood has washed us clean.

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.

There is no need to “force” it. The passage was written by a Catholic and is completely consistent with Catholic teaching. For those who have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition, Scripture can be interpreted to mean all sorts of strange things not believed by the Apostles.

 

[Peter_J]

Since, based on my understanding, which could be wrong, Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, I think your statement that the church does not need to “justify” doctrines using it is incorrect. If it is not needed, then why is an apologist on a Catholic website doing it? That’s where I got that from: catholic.com.

As you undoubtedly know, ckempston, the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura.

However, there isn’t really any consensus among Catholics on the question of “Sufficiency of Scripture”: some Catholics subscribe to Sufficiency of Scripture, other Catholics believe that there are some doctrine that are not contained (not even implicitly) in Sacred Scriptures (a.k.a. “constitutive tradition”).

 

[ckempston]

Yes, because we are the righteousness of God in Christ. His blood has washed us clean.

You hit the nail on the head, though I made this statement about two pages ago.

There is no need to “force” it. The passage was written by a Catholic and is completely consistent with Catholic teaching. For those who have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition, Scripture can be interpreted to mean all sorts of strange things not believed by the Apostles.

Are you claiming that the passage has to do with judgment? Is this an “official” position of the church? If so, kindly point it out.

 

[ckempston]

As you undoubtedly know, ckempston, the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura.

However, there isn’t really any consensus among Catholics on the question of “Sufficiency of Scripture”: some Catholics subscribe to Sufficiency of Scripture, other Catholics believe that there are some doctrine that are not contained (not even implicitly) in Sacred Scriptures (a.k.a. “constitutive tradition”).

Well, although you ignored my point and changed the subject, I’ll take the bait. I’ll contend that official Catholic teaching MUST be agree with the “Sufficiency of Scripture” because it teaches that Protestants who use “scripture only” can be saved. If Catholic teaching affirms that those who use scripture only can be saved, it would seem that there shouldn’t be much debate on the matter.

 

[guanophore]

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

Right. But it is painful to be separated from one’s unholy attachments. These are works (doings) of ours that fall short of God’s perfection, holding unresolved resentments for instance. Many people do this without even realizing they are doing so. What “work” have you done that, if it was burned up, would not be painful to you? I just built a bookshelf. I would be very sad to have it burned.

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

Why could it not be both?

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.

Well, I don’t think it is possible to “prove” any of the doctrines of the faith. I can’t “prove” that Jesus is the Son of God, either, but I believe He is. If you are looking for “proof” you need a science forum, not a faith forum.

Yes, Jesus could do this in an instant, and I believe at times He does. When He returns, it is clear it will be in “the twinkling of an eye”. He also, at other times, does not transform people instantly, but gradually.

Jesus did not always speak in parables.

This is true, but when He did, he did not create “untruths” within His parables. He used real situations and real contexts/issues to make His point. He did not tell “fables” about the afterlife.

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

These are not parables, but moral teachings

Well, we believe that Jesus was teaching moral principles by parable as well. In the case of the story of Abraham’s bosom, it was that if they did not believe the prophets, they would not believe one even if he rose from the dead. The fact that people were alive, aware of what was happening on earth, and able to communicate are incidentals in that parable. It does not make them untrue.