Your opinion on Purgatory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is just one of the errors of Protestant disobedience.
Those “Protestants” should read more of the bible then.
PAUL!!! wrote that he made up in his flesh what was LACKING in the afflictions of Christ. What do they say about that bit of the bible?
Ignorance of scripture is no excuse.
…a lot of things that are true, and a lot of things that are made-up by man. Use caution!
Ask them to read 2 Cor 2:10 and 2 Cor 5. PAUL!!! forgave sin in the PERSON of Christ, and said that we must be “reconciled to God” Sounds pretty clear to me.
This one is clearly false on its face. We don’t suffer? AYKM?
Back to PAUL!!! in Colossians 1:24. Right there in the bible.
They must not read Revelation 21:27: “Nothing impure will enter” heaven. Are they 100% pure as they are? Really? Hint: this is a man-made doctrine of theirs.
All in all, I believe you are listening far too much to people that teach error. Error #1 is that the bible is all they need. This is the lie that allows them to twist God’s word to their own desires and destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Get a catechism. Get Catholicism for Dummies. Get The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. Read them and know. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Jesus did not write the New Testament. He did not command the writing of it. He did not hand out bibles. He did not give all authority to the bible. Jesus founded a Church. He gave all authority on earth and in heaven to the Church (Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18, John 20:23). That Church overturned the requirement of circumcision which God Himself gave to Abraham (Acts 15).

Talk about awesome.
How could you be so sure it’s not YOU who are wrong?
Try to imagine how the church looked and worshipped just after Jesus ascension.
But you’ll say it’s ongoing revelation. Is THAT not man-made?

And your interpretation of Colossians 1:24 is rather horrifying if you thank that PAUL, the writer of about 1/3 of the new testament, and who clearly lays out all the theology necessary for salvation in the book to the Romans, was saying that he, Paul, was necessary to finish up Jesus’work - well, you should start all over again, maybe speak to a priest about this and see what he would say.

JESUS WORK WAS COMPLETE AND FINISHED AND REQUIRES NO HELP FROM ANY MAN.
John 19:30

FG
 
  1. I don’t understand purgatory. (interesting concept!)
Based on your explanation of why you don’t believe in Purgatory, the only logical conclusion is that you do not understand what Purgatory is and the purpose it is intended to serve. I submit this in the most respectful manner possible. But it is true and is an assertion by which I stand.
  1. I can’t understand the CCC even though it’s written at a 5th grade level. (please try giving the CCC to a fifth grade and see if they understand it!!)
I have. They do.
  1. My ideas are simplistic. (I wish they were, I’d be happier)
Not quite. I said the reductionist argument you were attempting to advance was simplistic in that it overlooked the purpose of Purgatory (eg, purification) and conflated that with forgiveness (eg, salvation). Your arguments have been remarkably clear and textured. The problem efforts to provide rebuttals have overly simplistic ramifications that cannot be ignored or dismissed inasmuch as they don’t even answer the core premise being made as concerns Purgatory.
  1. I was told I put words into your mouth. (I don’t think so…)
You did.
  1. Agaiin, I do not understand purgatory.
With respect, you do not.
You could say I don’t understand something the way YOU understand it, but the way you say it is rather insulting especially since I understand purgatory more than 95% of the people sitting at any given Mass.
Conjecture, utterly unprovable and demonstrably not true considering your definition of Purgatory is factually incorrect.
I like to converse and have done it on these threads. I don’t like to argue. I like sticking to the topic at hand and not give or receive insults.
I am not arguing. I am not insulting. I am merely pointing out that you do not understand Purgatory. And I am right.
You’ll have to accept that I know both Catholic and Protestant theology and we could proceed from there with an intelligent conversation.
Unfortunately I cannot comply as your explanation of Purgatory is so fundamentally flawed as to be categorically wrong.

Further, I cannot speak to the rest of your understanding of Catholic teaching and theology as those issues have not been raised to my recollection in any of your replies to me.

Finally I cannot comment on your understanding of Protestant theology since (A) such is not the purpose of this thread and (B) there is no standard of orthodoxy upon which Protestant beliefs must be based, else Protestants wouldn’t have such varied beliefs even from each other.
 
I agree with everything you’ve said.
Our faith depends on trusting what the Apostles heard and saw in those approx. 3 years they were with Jesus. And the resurrection.
Your quote up above is wrong and I wouldn’t point it out except that it makes a big difference from the original.

You said:
“Go behind me… you satan.”

This means that Jesus was saying that Peter was satan. “YOU satan.”

The correct quote is:
“Get behind me satan.” Mathew 16:23 NASB

Jesus was addressing satan. Satan was influencing Peter at that moment. Making Peter think in a worldly way instead of in a spiritual way - as Jesus was forced to do since He was God and since His reason for going into Jerusalem was precisely to die. Peter still did not understand this and wouldn’t until after the resurrection.

Problem: Every teacher thinks he is sent by Christ. Including you. Writing articles and linking them to these threads.

The reason I don’t read links is because my time is limited and I’m here so REAL PEOPLE could express their opinions - if I want to read links I could just google stuff - which I don’t like to do. It wasn’t meant as an insult to you personally.

FG
I am afraid you are mistaken, Jesus does not want Satan behind him; he wanted Peter back behind him as a follower, rather than trying to lure him in a different direction.
If one is Behind Jesus, one is following, to the cross. Standing in front of Jesus to tell him what to think and believe is to be Satan to Jesus.
Jesus was equating Peter with Satan, and directing him back to his position as disciple.
As for the original text, I read the original, in Greek. But that is not an argument for anything. The correct argument is the understanding of the Church, today, in person.

Further: Our Faith does NOT depend on OUR TRUSTING the Apostles, as if we were in their presence.

Our Faith DOES depend on our trusting the present day Apostolic authorities in our presence (our Bishops, our Holy Father, our Magisterium) and following behind them rather than thinking to tell them they are wrong in their teachings to us.

They believed their Bishops, who believed their Bishops, who believed the Apostles, who followed Behind Jesus.

You are not Following Behind, (Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ for standing in front of him trying to teach Jesus the way to go), but are setting your mind on the reasonings of men interpreting texts in their own minds rather than learning from the messengers sent to them, and you are trying to change the direction of Jesus in his Body the Church.

Come back behind him and learn from his apostolic messengers.
 
So the concept would be like this: When we die and go before God, He will not see us, our wretched self - but He will see Jesus, His Son, whom we have “put on.”
Fran,

I gave this a lot of thought last night and I think I finally understand why it doesn’t make sense to me. I would like your thoughts on this.

I took a walk last night and was listening to a couple of talks on “the Passion of Jesus” and “Why We Need the Cross”. It really helped me focus on Jesus’ sacrifice. Part way through the second talk they quoted a sermon by Father Paul Check, who said:
***We tend to sleep walk when it comes to sin. Sin has become something we tend to joke about instead of take seriously. Society has become very casual about sin.
The insight of his sermon was Sin doesn’t offend God because it can literally hurt the Creator. Sin offends God because it destroys what he loves most, that’s us. ***

When I heard this it just clicked why this statement doesn’t make sense to me. I think it’s because I said something similar yesterday.

As you stated we “put on Jesus” and he will cover us when we come before God. At this point God will look upon us and See Jesus and not see “our wretched self”. Well this would mean our wretched self is still present in heaven it is just buried deep under Jesus. Which would also mean that our unclean “wretched” self was able to enter into heaven, it is just not visible to God. Wouldn’t God want to get rid of this sin (or the better description, the tendencies towards sin, as another poster stated) that is within us? Even if Jesus covers us, and both us and God are not aware of these sins, they would still be present within us in heaven?

I have no problem with the idea of us putting on Jesus (whether it be fully or partially doesn’t make a difference to this thought), but the only thing that makes logical sense is that Jesus cleanses us (purges us) of all stain before we are presented to the Father. This way the hidden stain does not enter into heaven. Jesus loves us to much to just cover our sins before the Father, he would want us to be perfectly clean, which is something we both agree can not occur in this life. Therefore, this purging has to happen at some point after death but before we see the Father. We can call it Purgatory or we can call it something else, but Jesus cleansing us seems far more loving than just putting a clean coat on over the wretched grime and smell.

Thanks for your insight.
 
Jesus was equating Peter with Satan, and directing him back to his position as disciple.
As for the original text, I read the original, in Greek. But that is not an argument for anything. The correct argument is the understanding of the Church, today, in person.

Further: Our Faith does NOT depend on OUR TRUSTING the Apostles, as if we were in their presence.

Our Faith DOES depend on our trusting the present day Apostolic authorities in our presence (our Bishops, our Holy Father, our Magisterium) and following behind them rather than thinking to tell them they are wrong in their teachings to us.
I was completely gobsmacked after reading your entire post. I’d never heard a decent explanation of that passage until I read what you wrote here (in it’s entirety). Very well put!
 
I was completely gobsmacked after reading your entire post. I’d never heard a decent explanation of that passage until I read what you wrote here (in it’s entirety). Very well put!
Thank you; it actually did come from reading the Greek text - the word for “behind” is “opiso” in greek,

Jesus did not say simply “get away” like he did in the temptation in the desert to Satan, but to Peter said “get away ‘opiso’ me” Then he said, “Anyone wishing to follow 'opiso” me must take up his cross…" It is so repetitively and delightfully visible there, much like a poet uses repetition to grab your focus.

“gobsmacked” - I will treasure that …
 
I wonder if purgatory is also a test environment. I mean with all this pain and being human, I wonder if we can get delayed in time(relative time I mean) from the proposed release date because of reacting to discouragement. A being unruly,poor attitude,cuss word slip, or a bout of anger, or pushing neighbor Greg off your foot in cramped quarters. 😃

I do know that encouragement is given by the saints who come to visit them, but not if that allows for modes of venting.

Some people here think it’s a learning environment. If so that implies error and consequence. It depends if the teaching or experience was to illicit an expectant response. This last may bring on a punishment. A discovery environment seems more likely.
 
from: softvocation.org/2014/09/24/the-last-things-part-i/ The Last Things Part I
There is a mystery called the Last Things. Again, it is a mystery because you cannot know it or know about it apart from being told and trusting the one telling you. The content of the Mystery of the Last Things can be understood but understanding it as truth is a matter of faith (that believes the messenger of the truth, reasoning that it is good to know this truth, and consenting to call it truth and pursue it).

To all people, the experientially known last thing is death. But actually, what is experientially known is not your own death as the last thing. It is, rather, experientially knowing the death of others. That is the end of mutual contact with an “other”. So it is the last thing of that other that you experience. No one, upon dying, can start speaking to us and say, “Yes, death is the last thing for me.” We can’t report back when we die.

But to the Baptized, there is the promise and hope of eternal life or life everlasting.

The term “Heaven”, or the phrase “going to Heaven”, is almost universally used by all, yet with varying ideas of its reality, from harps and angels and clouds to many ideas strange to western minds. But all refer to some idea of a reality that follows death, whether meant as a myth or as a means of consoling those who mourn someone or meant as a deep religious conviction of life after death.

The following series of explanations of the mystery of the Last Things is meant for the Baptized and will not attempt to convince those outside the Church to choose this understanding. But I mention the various notions because of the impact of those outside the Church on those who confess Christ. Living in the midst of the world while sojourning to our last end, we do not always distinguish who is talking about Heaven when we hear it described. And with this we can develop many confused notions that conflict with the revealed mystery from the Person we trust, yet without thinking we join the notions to the revelation for a distorted image.

There are other mysteries tied in with the Mystery of the Last Things, such as the mystery of God, the mystery of your own soul, etc. If you read the earlier description of the Trinity, (softvocation.org/2013/12/27/the-trinity/) and if you tried out the experiment there, you perhaps had some level of recognizing your own soul animating your conscious thinking, your soul giving to your conscious thoughts the right words at the right time, one after the other and making sense as they appeared in your thoughts. The soul, the invisible source of the words or images that appear in your consciousness, and the source of all your movements as a living human, is what separates from your physical or material body when you die. This soul, this source of animation of your thinking and doing in the world, leaves. And when it leaves, it has no longer any way to express itself in words or deeds by informing a “body” to think specific thoughts consciously, or speak specific words, or move specific ways, such that what the soul understands and wants within itself might become real outside itself. Also in that mystery of the Trinity was presented an understanding of the Persons of God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Upon death, these are the objects of interest, and in the resurrection of the dead, the body again returns as an object.

When you die, you are either in a relationship of mutual friendship with God, or at enmity with God. This is true of everyone, whether Baptized or not. Friendship with God might be visualized by thinking about the ability to look someone in the eye, and both of you are able to be happy in that gaze, glad to see each other, and concealing no hidden animosity about the other. You both consider the other to be “good” and “good to be with”. This is what the Church considers “being Justified” – being “good” in the presence of God who is “Good” and understanding it is true.
(Continued in next post)
 
Continued:
Also when you die, you in your soul are either debt free or in debt. This requires perhaps greater explanation. Your soul is the place where satisfaction happens right now. It is the place where your will is and your emotions, your appetites. When you say, “Aaaahhh…” as you sink into a nice hot bath, it is in your soul that the actual satisfaction happens. Your soul understands the bodily sensations that are happening in the aching muscles as the water warms them, and moves your thoughts and your speech to express outwardly what it knows inwardly, so you say, “aaahh.” In effect, your soul is moving your thoughts and body to stop all movement now and remain in the water so that the water can do its warming and “heal” the aching muscle tissue. This is “satisfaction” in the soul. Satisfaction or pleasure or joy happen whenever there is success at some activity that the soul wills the body or mind to act out. It is a good thing.

There are times when we “sin”, doing things contrary to what is right, contrary to correct reasoning, sometimes evading any reasoning. When we have success at those things, our soul is “satisfied”, the appetite or emotion or will is successful and now is at rest in enjoying the results. If I steal a candy bar from the candy store successfully and find a secluded spot to sit down and begin eating it, I am enjoying satisfaction and at rest. How does this fit in with my soul being debt free or in debt? I am enjoying a satisfaction that was never meant for me, that specific candy bar and the pleasure it gave. If I suddenly understand it was wrong, if in contrition I go to confess my sin, and if I receive forgiveness, still I am the “possessor” of an experience that should not have been mine. In my stomach perhaps the candy is still being digested when it should never have been there in the first place. The guilt of my sin was forgiven me at confession, God has refreshed me with his Grace and the Virtues, and God and I are again friends, but there is still an “injustice”. My stomach has something which does not belong to it. My soul has a moment of satisfaction in its history that does not belong to it. And someone else’s soul (the candy store owner’s soul) has sadness at the loss of part of his livelihood. If I now go back to the store and repay him (plus interest at my joy of being forgiven by God), I have restored the justice, the equality of satisfaction, between us both. If I do not go back, I carry this excess with me when I die, this fruit of sin, in my soul. While the sin was forgiven, the damage done was not repaired. I am friends with God, but I cannot yet be in his presence while I have in my possession what does not belong to me, and how do I part with it?

This is the place or reason of Purgatory, and the topic of this first installment of the series on the Mystery of the Last Things. When speaking of the Last Things, “Heaven” is what is often thought of first, but there is also Purgatory. This is often misunderstood and caricatured. It is called a place of torment, but explanations of this often involve pain that only a “body” could experience, while the separated soul cannot feel pain through its body because it left its body dead. Sometimes it is called a purification, but again there is little insight into what the soul is experiencing with this purification. While it may seem strange, the word “punishment” will actually give us the key to understanding Purgatory.
(To be continued in next post)
 
Continued…
Punishment seems like a very common word. We punish children by setting them in a corner or other ways when they misbehave. We punish criminals by sending them to jail for a time when they commit felonies. But what really is “punishment”? When a child is in a corner, that child is enduring an amount of time without satisfaction of the desire to move and act freely. When a criminal is in jail, that person is enduring a predetermined amount of time without satisfaction of the will to go where he wills and do what he wills. Our hope for both is that they would come out of that restraint with the understanding of behaving lawfully. But the actual reason we put them in these restraints is because they took satisfactions during their offenses that were not rightfully theirs. And they are now restrained to endure an amount of “dis-satisfaction of desire” that is somewhat proportionately equal to the satisfaction which they wrongfully enjoyed, and to experience some of the sorrow they caused for their victims. When the restraint time is complete, we consider the “satisfaction books balanced”. They “paid their dues” and there is equality in society or in the family, so that all can now be reconciled with each other.

Christian Law is much more all-encompassing than civil law or family behavioral requirements. Whenever we sin, even though not even noticed by the society in which we find ourselves as Christians, we are taking into our souls an undue satisfaction, and we are giving someone else undue sorrow. God’s justice notices it all. Even if we do things to reconcile some of the imbalances, we do not even notice much of it. This is the source of why the Church practices things like almsgiving and fasting. We consciously take time to endure loss of satisfaction in our souls through forcing our bodies (fasting) and minds (almsgiving) to give up good things from ourselves and give good things to others so that they have satisfaction restored to them. These are acts of our souls to recognize and eliminate injustice by returning just goods to others.

But, we do not know the whole picture that God knows in his justice. Rather than let us perish, God intends to finally purify us, his friends, to be fully justified and just in his presence. To this end is Purgatory. It is a “punishment”. It is a time period of being restrained without satisfaction of the desire of the will to be with God. In a way, its duration is not fully defined. If I hurt someone and that hurt continued past my death, and maybe unto several generations of descendants of the hurt person, that is the debt I bear – return of equality to all the sorrow or pain I caused by stealing satisfaction for myself. Purgatory is a place and time of restraint where you (your soul) are not able to move or do anything to satisfy your will to finally be united with God. It actually does nothing to help the people you stole satisfaction from, but only affects you, returning you to a state of justice where you have endured “your due share” of sorrow that is not outweighed by an undue amount of satisfaction. You will then not enter your joy carrying along a history that does not belong to you. St Paul phrased it this way: ‘If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] 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’ (1 Cor 3:14-15). You might say that the excess satisfaction and the hurt suffered by another are burned from your self-understanding by this restraint now endured in awaiting the end of Purgatory. Before purgatory, there has already been accomplished the making of the person “good”, yet there remain the effects of the sin (the person has in his possession what should not be in his possession, namely the “history” of the satisfaction, which history should not exist. These are the “works of straw” that are burned away. How? By a temporal “punishment” where a proper amount of “lack of satisfaction” balances the person to where they would have been had they not stolen satisfactions temporally. Why does God care about this? Simply stated, it is his Justice. He not only “makes us good” with justification (Grace infusing Virtues, and by which Virtues we understand we are his People and we act good, act as his People), but he also “reforms” our history to display that equality of justice, so that we do not “walk into heaven with riches that were not our due”.
(More in next post…)
 
(continued…)
When a child is confined to a corner, he may be told it is for an hour, some amount of time, or some other factor (such as a change of attitude). But while sitting there, looking at the corner, time seems unending and, in a way, cannot be measured, cannot be sensed. The child may be so bold as to ask, “How much longer?” Without bodies to sense, we also will not sense time, so how long is it? How long has it been? How much longer will it be until I am able to be with God? That kind of thinking will actually not be present in Purgatory, either, because it happens in the brain, the analysis of time and of waiting. And the brain died with the body. Actually, there will be a desire for God, and a sorrow because that desire is not “do-able”. A human needs his body to do things, so it will be like frustration, like “dis-satisfaction”. But there will also be the understanding, the knowing, of the soul. And somehow it will come about that the soul will finally know only the grace, the goodness, the justice of God

While you are enduring the time of restraint from satisfaction in Purgatory, it may be that someone yet alive in the world remembers you and prays to God for you. That person may also enter a period of self-denial, enduring loss of their will’s satisfaction, and asking God that he take this instead of continuing to restrain you. And this is acceptable to God, that a person may restore equality of justice in place of the person owing the equality.

When the Spirit moves you from Purgatory to the presence of God, you will enter in the joy of friendship and bring with you the satisfaction of what he intends you to have rather than the satisfactions your sins procured. If someone else has made reparation for you, you will know their suffering as your own. In this end in the presence of God you are “pure”. That means you stand before God both as his friend, his child, his subject, and you will stand in an “ordered fashion” before him, for you stand as a person who has in his makeup, his history, only the equivalent of blessing that comes from God alone, and you do not stand with an understanding of yourself possessing self-acquired happiness apart from God.

Is it possible to forego Purgatory altogether, being immediately brought into the presence and friendship of God when your die?

It is possible, and Jesus himself told his disciples about it. When they asked him to teach them to pray, he gave them this phrase to address to their Father, “Forgive us our trespasses / debts, as we forgive those who trespass against us / our debtors.” At another time he told them about an unforgiving servant who had himself been forgiven. The unforgiving servant refused forgiveness to a fellow servant, but when his master found out this unforgiving servant was put into prison until his own debt was paid. The servant did not want to do without the “satisfaction” of having the money the other owed him, while his own master was willing to do without the satisfaction of having the money this wicked servant owed him. Jesus was telling his disciples when you give up your “rightful satisfaction” that someone stole from you (by their trespassing against you) you are being like your Father in heaven, and like his Son, Jesus, who did without his life so you would be forgiven.
Why would that enable full forgiveness of all experiences of satisfaction that we stole? Because when you give up your hope of satisfaction, your anticipation, you are actually giving up your life. We think we need to experience this satisfaction to be “fully alive”, but giving up this anticipation of the justice owed to you is letting go of life you had once wanted in order that another person would not suffer. You are suited for heaven because you are looking to your Father to grant you life in spite of the “death of not being fulfilled” with repayment from those who have sinned against you. Repeating a line from above, “You stand as a person who has in his makeup, his history, only the equivalent of blessing that comes from God alone, and you do not stand with an understanding of yourself possessing self-acquired happiness apart from God.”

Forgiving those who “owe you”, who have stolen goodness from you, is not as easy as simply saying, “I forgive everyone.” It means looking inside yourself to see what is missing in you. What happiness do you lack, what justice is missing? And who is the cause of this missing happiness or justice? If it were a matter of money, as in the story Jesus related to his disciples, if your actual net worth was one million dollars, yet part of that worth was a debt owed you of two hundred thousand dollars, and the debtor could not pay, forgiveness would mean you tell the debtor he is free of the debt, and then, more importantly you no longer look at your net worth the same, but you start your books afresh and declare your net worth to yourself to be eight hundred thousand dollars, with no more looks at the former debtor as a debtor. Forgiveness is in yourself, no longer believing you are missing anything, and being grateful to the God who says that He, as well, is missing nothing you had owed Him.

But, how will you “stand before God” when you have no body when upon death or from Purgatory you attain Heaven? How will you see God, to look him in the eyes when you have no eyes? How will you thank him without a tongue? And how will you ponder his goodness and majesty without a brain? That will be the next installment on the Mystery of Heaven.

John Martin (with collaboration of Mark Anthony)
end of series from softvocation.org/2014/09/24/the-last-things-part-i/
 
Fascinating John, thanks for the info. I may comment later has I read, but to stop you here, what are your thoughts or what is written about the mutual friendship of reprobates while infants?. We know that while Esau is still in the womb he was hated. So given an infant was Baptized but assigned(?) a reprobate, what kind of mutual “gazing” would be expected for a child who dies suddenly here.?
 
Fascinating John, thanks for the info. I may comment later has I read, but to stop you here, what are your thoughts or what is written about the mutual friendship of reprobates while infants?. We know that while Esau is still in the womb he was hated. So given an infant was Baptized but assigned(?) a reprobate, what kind of mutual “gazing” would be expected for a child who dies suddenly here.?
First, there is no “assignment” of “reprobate”.
Only a few people in the history of the world were predestined or reprobate, in order that Grace would be available to all the rest and made visible to the rest. In order that Mary and Jesus were not “by chance” or by contingency born and existing, and therefore visible to all the rest of us by “plan”, God did predestine some.

Jacob was predestined so that Jesus would be born, Mary was predestined for the same, and “Esau I hated” does not mean “I had malicious emotions toward Esau” (for we know Esau became friends with Jacob years later, and was not maliciously despised by God), but it means, “I did not intend blessing to Esau from his father, but intend it for Jacob, for my own reasons”. There was a single string of decendents from Adam and Eve to her seed, who would crush the Serpants head, that were the “Predestined”, and possibly a handful of others, so that we could attain eternal life by Grace that came with Jesus.

The predestined and the reprobate had special calling in Salvation History, so that there would be a certitude of salvation history, and all so that Grace would abound to all of us by Faith.

Infants / children who die are not reprobate, in the sense of determined to hell, but retain an innocence in the presence of God, knowing union. It is the person who retains some false understanding of self-acquired false-goodness who is cleaned of that understanding in Purgatory.
 
“It is the person who retains some false understanding of self-acquired false-goodness who is cleaned of that understanding in Purgatory”.

Can you expand on this?
 
“It is the person who retains some false understanding of self-acquired false-goodness who is cleaned of that understanding in Purgatory”.

Can you expand on this?
From my website post:
There are times when we “sin”, doing things contrary to what is right, contrary to correct reasoning, sometimes evading any reasoning. When we have success at those things, our soul is “satisfied”, the appetite or emotion or will is successful and now is at rest in enjoying the results. If I steal a candy bar from the candy store successfully and find a secluded spot to sit down and begin eating it, I am enjoying satisfaction and at rest. How does this fit in with my soul being debt free or in debt? I am enjoying a satisfaction that was never meant for me, that specific candy bar and the pleasure it gave. If I suddenly understand it was wrong, if in contrition I go to confess my sin, and if I receive forgiveness, still I am the “possessor” of an experience that should not have been mine. In my stomach perhaps the candy is still being digested when it should never have been there in the first place. The guilt of my sin was forgiven me at confession, God has refreshed me with his Grace and the Virtues, and God and I are again friends, but there is still an “injustice”. My stomach has something which does not belong to it. My soul has a moment of satisfaction in its history that does not belong to it. And someone else’s soul (the candy store owner’s soul) has sadness at the loss of part of his livelihood. If I now go back to the store and repay him (plus interest at my joy of being forgiven by God), I have restored the justice, the equality of satisfaction, between us both. If I do not go back, I carry this excess with me when I die, this fruit of sin, in my soul. While the sin was forgiven, the damage done was not repaired. I am friends with God, but I cannot yet be in his presence while I have in my possession what does not belong to me, and how do I part with it?
 
Based on your explanation of why you don’t believe in Purgatory, the only logical conclusion is that you do not understand what Purgatory is and the purpose it is intended to serve. I submit this in the most respectful manner possible. But it is true and is an assertion by which I stand.
Okay. Let’s do purgatory.
Purgatory is a final purification.
The person there is saved but needs purification.
You cannot enter heaven unless you are pure and, since no one is pure, practically all will have to pass throught purgatory.
Unless they’ve done a plenary indulgence and it is still valid.
Or unless they have ABSOLUTELY NO SIN on their soul -which I doubt anyone would.
If you’ve committed a mortal sin for which there has not been either perfect or imperfect contrition and you die, the final destination is hell.

Do you think I lie to you?
The reason I cannot accept purgatory is because it makes Jesus’ salvific work of limited effect. It’s not HIM making reparation for our sins it’s OUR job to keep on the narrow path, confess all our sins, and end up in purgatory if we don’t have the time to. Is it not clear that this is trying to get to heaven on our own effort? if Jesus died for us then we must trust in HIM to get us to heaven.
I have. They do.
Wherever you live stay there. In my parts most adults don’t understand the catechism!
Let alone 10 year old kids. It’s easier to understand if you already have the concept - but what if you don’t? It’s not an easy read.
Not quite. I said the reductionist argument you were attempting to advance was simplistic in that it overlooked the purpose of Purgatory (eg, purification) and conflated that with forgiveness (eg, salvation). Your arguments have been remarkably clear and textured. The problem efforts to provide rebuttals have overly simplistic ramifications that cannot be ignored or dismissed inasmuch as they don’t even answer the core premise being made as concerns Purgatory.
What did I ever say regarding purgatory having anything to do with forgiveness? The sins are forgiven, they’re just not PAID FOR. Whatever that means to a God who created the universe and everything in it. As you’ll note up above, I am well aware that those who go to purgatory are saved and on their way to heaven - eventually.
Which rebuttals are you speaking of? Please state a position to which I can respond instead of telling me I’m wrong and don’t know anything or have simplistic arguments.
With respect, you do not.
Conjecture, utterly unprovable and demonstrably not true considering your definition of Purgatory is factually incorrect.
I am not arguing. I am not insulting. I am merely pointing out that you do not understand Purgatory. And I am right.
Unfortunately I cannot comply as your explanation of Purgatory is so fundamentally flawed as to be categorically wrong.
See. All you can do is tell me I’m wrong. You’re going to have to tell me WHY.
Further, I cannot speak to the rest of your understanding of Catholic teaching and theology as those issues have not been raised to my recollection in any of your replies to me.
Thank goodness! We’re having enough of a problem dealing with just one concept!
Finally I cannot comment on your understanding of Protestant theology since (A) such is not the purpose of this thread and (B) there is no standard of orthodoxy upon which Protestant beliefs must be based, else Protestants wouldn’t have such varied beliefs even from each other.
Everything I state is a standard. I have to agree with you that there are nuances in Protestantism that have created break-away churches and this could not be what Jesus would have wanted.

On the other hand, knowing the Catholic church really well - I can say that there are many differing opinion even among the clergy but they all desire to remain under the roof of the church. You cannot deny this.

FG
 
I am afraid you are mistaken, Jesus does not want Satan behind him; he wanted Peter back behind him as a follower, rather than trying to lure him in a different direction.
If one is Behind Jesus, one is following, to the cross. Standing in front of Jesus to tell him what to think and believe is to be Satan to Jesus.
Jesus was equating Peter with Satan, and directing him back to his position as disciple.
As for the original text, I read the original, in Greek. But that is not an argument for anything. The correct argument is the understanding of the Church, today, in person.

Further: Our Faith does NOT depend on OUR TRUSTING the Apostles, as if we were in their presence.

Our Faith DOES depend on our trusting the present day Apostolic authorities in our presence (our Bishops, our Holy Father, our Magisterium) and following behind them rather than thinking to tell them they are wrong in their teachings to us.

They believed their Bishops, who believed their Bishops, who believed the Apostles, who followed Behind Jesus.

You are not Following Behind, (Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ for standing in front of him trying to teach Jesus the way to go), but are setting your mind on the reasonings of men interpreting texts in their own minds rather than learning from the messengers sent to them, and you are trying to change the direction of Jesus in his Body the Church.

Come back behind him and learn from his apostolic messengers.
So you believe Jesus was calling Peter satan? If you check Mathew 4:10 you’ll find Jesus telling satan these same exact words in the desert temptations.
Mathew 4:10 “Get thee hence, satan.” KJV Jesus was telling satan to get away from Him, just as Jesus was doing in Mathew 16:23. Do you think He gave the keys to the church to someone so intimately involved with satan??
In Mathew 16:23b Jesus now speaks to Peter because Peter was letting satan influence him in trying to tell Jesus He did’nt have to die.

Oh. BTW: the Greek translation:“Get Thee Behind Me, Adversary.”
Which is what satan means: adversary

John Martin, what were the first things you learned in Theology?
  1. Belief in God in a reasonable belief.
  2. Belief in Jesus is a reasonable belief.
  3. We can believe in Jesus because WE CAN TRUST THE APOSTLES declarations.
  4. We can trust that they were not lying and that they witnessed with their own eyes Jesus and his resurrection.
1 John 1:1-4
1 John 5:13
John 20:31

Our faith depends on our trusting Jesus, but it’s the Apostles who told us about Him and we are able to believe that they told us the truth. Upon whom do you think the church basis ITS beliefs? Itself??

You yourself say:
They believed their Bishops, who believed their Bishops, who believed the Apostles, who followed Behind Jesus.

I don’t interpret texts in my own mind. See. This is a problem. You think everything you write is correct and your church is correct and EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN church is wrong. How can this be? You believe you belong to the one, true church. Please check if all the doctrines always existed. Do you suppose the church might have looked different in the first century? How, do you suppose? Was there a homily, was there communion, was there confession, was there purgatory? What was the same - what was different?

I’d much rather discuss a concept instead of “I’m right - you’re wrong”, it’s rather childish. But your post leaves no choice.

FG
 
Do you think I lie to you?
I do not. Nor have I said that you have lied.
Okay. Let’s do purgatory.
For brevity’s sake, I’ll simply say I found your definition of Purgatory as provided in this section of your post reasonably accurate. Before we pat each other on the back though, you went on to say…
The reason I cannot accept purgatory is because it makes Jesus’ salvific work of limited effect.
… in spite of your fairly clear explanation of Purgatory immediately earlier in your post, writing this calls into question your understanding of Purgatory… or, I now realize, your conception of salvation as received through Our Lord’s death on the cross.

So either your understanding Purgatory or your understanding of the nature of salvation requires clarification.
It’s not HIM making reparation for our sins it’s OUR job to keep on the narrow path, confess all our sins, and end up in purgatory if we don’t have the time to. Is it not clear that this is trying to get to heaven on our own effort?
No it isn’t. Our Lord obtains forgiveness for sins for us. We sin, we repent, we ask for forgiveness and we are forgiven.

As I have said repeatedly now, Purgatory purges our sin nature. Our sin nature was not addressed by Our Lord’s death on the cross. It is a separate problem and thus requires a separate mechanism to be addressed. And it could well be that the agent of purification is the self-same agent who purchased forgiveness for us by dying on the cross. It’s entirely possible that Purgatory is a direct action of Our Lord to separate us from our sin nature. That, however, does not mitigate the fact that Purgatory and salvation are two different things that require two separate remedies.
What did I ever say regarding purgatory having anything to do with forgiveness?
You keep mentioning Our Lord’s death on the cross as being sufficient as your answer to your rejection of the doctrine of Purgatory, as though His salvific work has the slightest relevance to this discussion. It does not.
The sins are forgiven, they’re just not PAID FOR.
Well and good, except we are not talking about sins. We are talking about the sin nature. Our Lord’s death on the cross obtains forgiveness for sins. It does not address our sin nature.
As you’ll note up above, I am well aware that those who go to purgatory are saved and on their way to heaven - eventually.
Indeed, that makes your continued confusion over the matter all the more mystifying.
Which rebuttals are you speaking of? Please state a position to which I can respond instead of telling me I’m wrong and don’t know anything or have simplistic arguments.
Citing examples (and my rebuttals) would have the unpleasant outcome of stretching this reply across several posts. Suffice it to say that is out of the question. If you’re curious, please reread our discussion in this thread.
On the other hand, knowing the Catholic church really well - I can say that there are many differing opinion even among the clergy but they all desire to remain under the roof of the church. You cannot deny this.
Is it your position that clergy disagree with established Church teachings?
 
So you believe Jesus was calling Peter satan? If you check Mathew 4:10 you’ll find Jesus telling satan these same exact words in the desert temptations.
Mathew 4:10 “Get thee hence, satan.” KJV Jesus was telling satan to get away from Him, just as Jesus was doing in Mathew 16:23. Do you think He gave the keys to the church to someone so intimately involved with satan??
In Mathew 16:23b Jesus now speaks to Peter because Peter was letting satan influence him in trying to tell Jesus He did’nt have to die

Oh. BTW: the Greek translation:“Get Thee Behind Me, Adversary.”
Which is what satan means: adversary.
Mt. 4:10 - the greek is “hypage, satana” directly translated “go, Satan”
Mt. 16:23 - the greek is “hypage opiso mou, satana” directly translated “go behind me, satan”. Of course it is preceded by "He said to Peter, ‘go behind me, Satan’ "
If I talk to you and command you with a name, I am calling you by that name… simple enough.
So, if you wish to go by the definition of Satan as “adversary”, then simply Jesus is telling Peter he is his adversary if he stands in front of him, and he must get back behind him and follow behind him taking his cross like the rest of the Church is doing.
And if Satan is going to be used by its definition of “adversary”, then Jesus said to the devil, “Go, Adversary” (but not “Go BEHIND me as one of my disciples like Peter, who must stay behind me carrying his cross”)

In front of Jesus to block Jesus, Simon is named Satan by Jesus.
Behind Jesus to follow behind, Simon is named Rock (Peter) by Jesus.
John Martin, what were the first things you learned in Theology?
  1. Belief in God in a reasonable belief.
  2. Belief in Jesus is a reasonable belief.
  3. We can believe in Jesus because WE CAN TRUST THE APOSTLES declarations.
  4. We can trust that they were not lying and that they witnessed with their own eyes Jesus and his resurrection.
1 John 1:1-4
1 John 5:13
John 20:31
Our faith depends on our trusting Jesus, but it’s the Apostles who told us about Him and we are able to believe that they told us the truth. Upon whom do you think the church basis ITS beliefs? Itself??
You yourself say:
They believed their Bishops, who believed their Bishops, who believed the Apostles, who followed Behind Jesus.
I don’t interpret texts in my own mind. See. This is a problem. You think everything you write is correct and your church is correct and EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN church is wrong. How can this be? You believe you belong to the one, true church. Please check if all the doctrines always existed. Do you suppose the church might have looked different in the first century? How, do you suppose? Was there a homily, was there communion, was there confession, was there purgatory? What was the same - what was different?
I’d much rather discuss a concept instead of “I’m right - you’re wrong”, it’s rather childish. But your post leaves no choice.
The Church was the same, from the day of Pentecost to today - oh, the homilies were much longer.
The knowing and understanding always existed, and as needed when facing dissenters to the truth, doctrine was formalized by the Magisterium (the Bishops) for safeguarding against the dissenters’ false preaching. You do not need to formalize what all are familiar with, and you don’t explain what everyone knows. You formalize and explain when there is something unknown or when there is misinformation being propagated to lead people astray.

Strange as it may seem, the Catholic Church is not a Church of doctrine - it is a Church of believing the one who was sent to me by the Lord, the real person today, and asking him to Baptize me into union with him and the Church, and asking him to teach me, and asking him to grant me the Graces sent with him by the One who sent him to me. We do not trust the Catechism because it is truth, but we trust the people who give it to us and therefore consider every single idea in it to be truth, because the one giving it to us came (via Apostolic Succession) from Jesus.

We do not believe doctrines, such as Purgatory - we believe a person who tells us there is Purgatory, and so there is Purgatory, because the person we trust told us it is so. We bank our lives on the Holy Father being from Jesus, legitimately, and our Bishops, and our Priests, and our fellow Baptized. You left because you did not believe doctrines; we stay because we believe people.
 
Mt. 4:10 - the greek is “hypage, satana” directly translated “go, Satan”
Mt. 16:23 - the greek is “hypage opiso mou, satana” directly translated “go behind me, satan”. Of course it is preceded by "He said to Peter, ‘go behind me, Satan’ "
If I talk to you and command you with a name, I am calling you by that name… simple enough.
So, if you wish to go by the definition of Satan as “adversary”, then simply Jesus is telling Peter he is his adversary if he stands in front of him, and he must get back behind him and follow behind him taking his cross like the rest of the Church is doing.
And if Satan is going to be used by its definition of “adversary”, then Jesus said to the devil, “Go, Adversary” (but not “Go BEHIND me as one of my disciples like Peter, who must stay behind me carrying his cross”)

In front of Jesus to block Jesus, Simon is named Satan by Jesus.
Behind Jesus to follow behind, Simon is named Rock (Peter) by Jesus.

The Church was the same, from the day of Pentecost to today - oh, the homilies were much longer.
The knowing and understanding always existed, and as needed when facing dissenters to the truth, doctrine was formalized by the Magisterium (the Bishops) for safeguarding against the dissenters’ false preaching. You do not need to formalize what all are familiar with, and you don’t explain what everyone knows. You formalize and explain when there is something unknown or when there is misinformation being propagated to lead people astray.

Strange as it may seem, the Catholic Church is not a Church of doctrine - it is a Church of believing the one who was sent to me by the Lord, the real person today, and asking him to Baptize me into union with him and the Church, and asking him to teach me, and asking him to grant me the Graces sent with him by the One who sent him to me. We do not trust the Catechism because it is truth, but we trust the people who give it to us and therefore consider every single idea in it to be truth, because the one giving it to us came (via Apostolic Succession) from Jesus.

We do not believe doctrines, such as Purgatory - we believe a person who tells us there is Purgatory, and so there is Purgatory, because the person we trust told us it is so. We bank our lives on the Holy Father being from Jesus, legitimately, and our Bishops, and our Priests, and our fellow Baptized. You left because you did not believe doctrines; we stay because we believe people.
Regarding Mathew 16:23

I believe that, yes, if we change the word to adversary, it could be taken to mean that Jesus was calling Peter an adversary. I’ll look into it for my own benefit since I remember Jesus was speaking to satan as in Mathew 4:10. I don’t think this is a really important point however…

Regarding doctrine. You’re right that Ieft because the doctrines (more than one) made no sense but you do have to admit that the Catholic church, as all churches, does have its own doctrine.

Mathew 22:37 comes to mind. I must love God also with my whole mind. How could I do that if I don’t understand certain positions the church takes? I used to have a friend that would tell me that I couldn’t consider myself a Catholic unless I believed all dogma and also all doctrine. How could this be possible?

You sound really intelligent, let me ask you this: You don’t believe baptizing infants causes a mess with theology? I hesitate to even get into this because it’s so complicated. I mean, do you think everything through and then accept, or do you just accept? This is my problem…Do we believe what a church tells us or what Jesus and Paul and Peter and James, etc. tell us?

Now I know that the church has made some changes and I’m okay with this. But did you know (i think you do) that some churches teach doctrine that is in no way biblical. For instance the Word of Faith movement. Should those people just accept what persons are telling them, to put it your way - or would it be preferable to study on their own. BTW, I am a sola scriptura believer but NOT a solo scriptura believer. That is a dangerous practice.

Also, we have to say that the catholic church should be appreciated by all for stopping the heresies you speak of and for getting the letters into one book called the N.T.

FG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top