is purgutory real ?

Soul Winner

kelly1 wrote: »

Baptism etc is no guarantee of salvation. It doesn't prevent us from commiting mortal sins.

So can you get in if you don't get baptised etc...?

kelly1 wrote: »

You seem to have completely misunderstoody my posts

You're probably right but can you point out exactly where please?

kelly1

patmartino wrote: »

Ok, we now are agreed that

Limbo, purgatory, are not in the bible.

Yes, not explicitly i.e not given a name.

patmartino wrote: »

how does the church still explain this?

Using theological reasoning to interpret Scripture.

lmaopml

Soul Winner wrote: »

Plus Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He was baptized, made holy communion, was confirmed etc... I thought under Catholicism that made you OK with God? Please correct me if I'm wrong. But if that is the case then there is no purgatory for Hitler.


Hitler was baptised a Roman Catholic by his Mother and Father. According to historian Michael Rissmann, a young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan Germanism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.

Early on, Hitler expressed his opinion about God and religion as follows, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany..

A public statement from later, after he decided it was worth his while to not antagonise Christianity into looking into his blatant anti-Christian party...
"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ..."

So, basically Hitler was an atheist, and a real cute one too

Now that is establised. No your mistaken 'baptism' doesn't guarantee being 'OK with God' Catholicism is not that simple.

Noel in all seriousness, purgatory is a man made tradition based on pagan idolatry. In your opinion..And yet the Jews and early Christians ( Years before the New Testament was ever first penned...) even in the time of the Aposles practiced praying for the dead, and not a whisper of condemnation?? Strange that don't you think? The idea is not unique to nor does it have its origins in Christianity. If it was true then there would be a lot more said about in the New Testament surely. There is, and the verses are there in black and white - and the Church has stated it's position on Purgatory - perhaps your version of Hades or I know some of you have a doctrine of a sleep of some sort, between the 1st and 2nd judgement? I don't know there are so many versions of the third place - However, in ancient practice of the first Christians it's very clear what they believed and they were closer to the apostles....and Catholics believe that the Pope is the only one guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the bible correctly. We believe that Jesus established one Church for all time...This makes sense to me as a person seeking 'faith', I'm new to it, and the Catholic Church seems to me to have more authority as it is the Church established by Jesus himself....Such a place would be somewhere to avoid. Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about Heaven and yet not a word about Purgatory. Jesus also said that sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the next....( Which implies that some sins are forgiven in the next, and also establishes the need for 'forgiveness' in the first place along with having 'faith'......I can respect that you believe it exists because of your Catholic faith but trying to shape it into a scriptural doctrine is pointless. It doesn't fit in. The closest you'll come is Hades or Sheol or Paradise. This place does seem to be divided in two by some sort of chasm, where on one side there is torment and on the other side there is joy, possibly the place where Jesus descended to after He expired on the cross in order preach to those on the joy side, where Abraham was with the servant boy in the parable Jesus told about the rich servant who had the easy life, and where Jesus said He would be with one of the two thieves, but neither of these places is either heaven or the lake of fire and neither of these places is described as a place to be purged of sin through suffering. Those left in the torment side will eventually be cast into the lake of fire as described in the book of Revelation, those on the joy side will rise in the resurrection to eternal life with Christ. The only purging for sins that went on in the New Testament was Christ's on the cross. And that is based on His own nature which is eternal. His sacrifice will always be forever adequate and there'll never come a time when some purging is needed from us. If we could purge ourselves from sin then we would not need Christ in the first place. If that's true on earth and its true in heaven then even if Purgatory did exist it would be true there to. It would be a place where a sinner would forever be suffering, because no amount of suffering on our part can purge us from our sin. Only the sufferings of Christ can do that, because His suffering was perfect, ours can never be.

I agree with a lot of what you say here.....However, where do you think this 'third' place is exactly and what are the different versions among the various denominations? I would be interested to know?

Soul Winner

lmaopml wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say here.....However, where do you think this 'third' place is exactly and what are the different versions among the various denominations? I would be interested to know?

May I ask you to use multi quotes please? All you need to do is put the text you want to respond to into brackets formatted as follows:



It should look like this when you post it:

Original Poster's name wrote:

Text you want to specifically respond to.

Use this format and your good to go. If you can edit your last post in this fashion I can reply better. Cheers

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

So I think when we're forgiven it means not going to jail but we still have to pay the price for the damage done. And I think this is what Jesus meant in Mt. 5:26 "Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny".

This is what confuses me. In 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 according to Paul we were bought for a price. Our sins were atoned for, and according to Romans 8:1, we have nothing to fear if we are truly to believe in Jesus Christ.

Saying that there is still a price to be paid in addition to Christ's crucifixion, implies that Christ's crucifixion wasn't enough.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what confuses me. In 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 according to Paul we were bought for a price. Our sins were atoned for, and according to Romans 8:1, we have nothing to fear if we are truly to believe in Jesus Christ.

Saying that there is still a price to be paid in addition to Christ's crucifixion, implies that Christ's crucifixion wasn't enough.

Yes all true, we will be saved from hell but who says we will be saved from all suffering?

Romans 8:1 says "Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". But what is condemnation? Is it not damnation?

Also how then do you explain 1 Peter 4:8? i.e. "[our] charity covers a multitude of sins"? According to you Jesus atones for all sin. So is scripture wrong?

Again for the sake of clarity, I'm saying that Christ saves us from eternal punishment (hell) but we pay a "temporal" price in Purgatory assuming we haven't paid the price on earth through penance and good works.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes all true, we will be saved from hell but who says we will be saved from all suffering?

That isn't the main point we need to explore, we first need to explore what basis there is for purgatory in the first place. There is no discussion in the Bible on the nature of purgatory, or even whether or not it will be a place of pain even if it did exist.

kelly1 wrote: »

Romans 8:1 says "Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". But what is condemnation? Is it not damnation?

If purgatory exists, we still have much to fear.

kelly1 wrote: »

Also how then do you explain 1 Peter 4:8? i.e. "[our] charity covers a multitude of sins"? According to you Jesus atones for all sin. So is scripture wrong?

No, it isn't.

My translation deals with the verse as follows:

1 Peter 4:8 wrote:

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins

Indeed, loving one another is the fulfilment of the law. Hence it does cover a multitude of sins.

Romans 13:10 wrote:

Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

There is no implication of purgatory in that passage.

kelly1 wrote: »

Again for the sake of clarity, I'm saying that Christ saves us from eternal punishment (hell) but we pay a "temporal" price in Purgatory assuming we haven't paid the price on earth through penance and good works.

I don't believe we are saved by works, but by grace. We respond in love and fellowship to one another because we are reminded of the amazing grace of Jesus Christ in our lives. There is no reward for good works, rather we can given a free gift of grace through belief and acting upon it. Works implies that it is deserved, we don't deserve heaven. Without God, we are all deserving of hell.

The point is, Jesus has paid the price, one and all. His death is entirely sufficient. Hence the role of purgatory seems to be nonsensical to me.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't the main point we need to explore, we first need to explore what basis there is for purgatory in the first place.
There is no discussion in the Bible on the nature of purgatory, or even whether or not it will be a place of pain even if it did exist.

I'll come back to you on this. Need to do some research.

Jakkass wrote: »

If purgatory exists, we still have much to fear.

The verse said condemnation, not fear.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe we are saved by works, but by grace.

I totally agree!! No argument there. But purgatory isn't about salvation!

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no reward for good works........

Can you back this up with Scripture? What about Matthew 5:12 "12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven"?

philologos

This reward isn't the product of works. But by bearing fruit in faith. Faith has signs, if the signs aren't apparent it isn't living. At least that is my take on the Paul / James dilemma. This reward isn't deserved, but is the gift of God.

lmaopml

Jakkass wrote: »

This reward isn't the product of works. But by bearing fruit in faith. Faith has signs, if the signs aren't apparent it isn't living. At least that is my take on the Paul / James dilemma. This reward isn't deserved, but is the gift of God.

Hi Jackass,

Are we splitting hairs a little on the justification? Do Protestants believe that if they have faith, even if it doesn't show outwardly that they are 'saved'? or do Protestants believe that if one has true faith that the other ( outward charity ) will follow, and if it doesn't then the faith wasn't true in the first place? I'm picking up that it's something like that?


Whereas Catholics say that justifcation is first and foremost by faith, but that acts of charity ( in other words showing this faith in action ) are very important too? The teaching in the Catholic church to my understanding is that we aren't 'justified' by acts, but that they are as pleasing to God as having a true faith.....and we are judged on both.


So are we going around the globe to say something similar? only in a 'different' way? Or is the difference that Protestants believe they are just saved by believing and nothing else is necessary? *Scratches head*

lmaopml

Soul Winner wrote: »

May I ask you to use multi quotes please? All you need to do is put the text you want to respond to into brackets formatted as follows:



It should look like this when you post it:



Use this format and your good to go. If you can edit your last post in this fashion I can reply better. Cheers

Will do SoulWinner I'm sorry, I was typing rather quick in work and don't even proof read - I'll learn how to do the 'quote' thing right yet though..lol....Straight after my 'Brad Pitt' film that I've got set up for later

BrianCalgary

lmaopml wrote: »

Whereas Catholics say that justifcation is first and foremost by faith, but that acts of charity ( in other words showing this faith in action ) are very important too? The teaching in the Catholic church to my understanding is that we aren't 'justified' by acts, but that they are as pleasing to God as having a true faith.....and we are judged on both.

That is what Christianity teaches: Justification by faith, faith supported by works.

I find that people have preconceived myths about the other denominations that just aren't true, based on diefferent meanings in terminology.

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Do Protestants believe that if they have faith, even if it doesn't show outwardly that they are 'saved'?

No. Faith in God should result in a transformation of who someone is. If someone remains the same as they were prior to salvation, we can tell that there has been no response to the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 12:2 wrote:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

This is a continuous process throughout life though. We aim to be more like Christ every day, and not only do we aim, but God Himself works in us to bring this to fruition:

Philippians 1:6 wrote:

And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

The writer C.S Lewis in Mere Christianity says that if we ask Jesus Christ into our lives, He will not only deal with what you ask for, but He will transform your entire heart and your entire soul.

I personally believe that it is mistaken to believe that salvation results in no response. I believe Christianity in all of it's expressions, is a response to what Jesus Christ has done for us. We are commanded to live a life worthy of the Gospel, I just believe that we don't do this out of necessity, nor do we do it out of the selfish ambition of salvation. We are called to be good for the sake of goodness alone reflecting God's holiness in all that we do.

lmaopml wrote: »

or do Protestants believe that if one has true faith that the other ( outward charity ) will follow, and if it doesn't then the faith wasn't true in the first place? I'm picking up that it's something like that?

This is it! With genuine faith, good works will follow

lmaopml wrote: »

Whereas Catholics say that justifcation is first and foremost by faith, but that acts of charity ( in other words showing this faith in action ) are very important too? The teaching in the Catholic church to my understanding is that we aren't 'justified' by acts, but that they are as pleasing to God as having a true faith.....and we are judged on both.

Doing what is right is very important, it's the sign of a loving God at work in us, however salvation comes primarily through faith.

lmaopml wrote: »

So are we going around the globe to say something similar? only in a 'different' way? Or is the difference that Protestants believe they are just saved by believing and nothing else is necessary? *Scratches head*

If our faith is true, nothing else is necessary as works are the result of a true faith. We are not saved by works, but by God's gift of grace to us, and it is God who is working in us to bring our faith to fruition on the day of Jesus Christ.

Just thinking of the extent of Christ's mercy is awe inspiring:

Ephesians 2:8-9 wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Apologies for the long post. It's something that is very important to my view of Christianity, and something that I love so much about it . No other faith offers this degree of mercy, and compassion, at least none that I have encountered through my study.

I still have a whole lot to learn about Christianity, and I should be regarded as nothing more than a moderately read layperson on this issue.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That is what Christianity teaches: Justification by faith, faith supported by works.

Just to clarify. Reformed Christianity teaches Justification by faith, faith evidenced by works. The works are evidence of the justification that has already taken place by faith. They are not the grounds, supporting or otherwise, of justification.

lmaopml

Cheers Guys !

Tbh, it sounds similar(ish). Catholics would believe that we are saved by Grace, but that those who haven't heard of Jesus or the Gospels can also be saved if they are moved by the Grace within....


...to me, this kinda means that people who haven't heard but yet 'know' or feel the grace of God and try to express it in their lives...We also believe that to those who 'have' heard, ALOT is expected....hence the 'acts of Grace' and image of Jesus should show...and God expects it to show..

It does sound similar? Or is there a very HUGE big difference that I am unaware of?

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

Slav wrote:

Where is Purgatory?Peter wrote about Sheol here and Sheol is not Purgatory, is it?

Perhaps it is!

Then I'd be most interested to see some official RCC explanations that would back this idea up! Have you seen any?

I think Kelly has made an excellent case for the 'Catholic' version of the 3rd place / state...........showing the very good references to the common belief in the early Church by the Church Fathers themselves ( which I read, and they truely are convincing and worth the debate! ) and points to several Scripture passages too...that certainly do need some logical assessment and serious discussion....

You see, the problem I have with that sort of references is that they support anything but Purgatory.

So what is Purgatory anyway? As far as I understand it:

1) It's a state of souls between bodily death and entering Heaven
2) It's a place where souls of the saved suffer a punishment for the sins they are still guilty of
3) This state is unavoidably temporal
4) The term to serve is in proportion with the personal guilt
5) The purpose of this state is to purify the souls so nothing "imperfect" will enter Heaven
6) The term can be reduced by means of other Church members prayers and charity
7) The term can be reduced by means of indulgences


Now the question, how many of the above we can find in the Bible? OK, maybe not directly supporting it, I'd be perfectly fine with that, but some clear logic chain must exist if we want to trace Purgatory back to the Scripture.

Next question would be how many of the above are covered by the Church Fathers. From the link given by Noel only St Augustine should be there IMO. Let's see:

The Acts of Paul and Thecla
First of all it's not on a par with Church Fathers as we might end up with very bizarre theories if we take hagiography as a theological source. Anyway, the given quote only covers 1) and 6) from my list above.

Abercius
Again only 1) and 6)

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity
It's hagiography, but covers 1), 2) and 6)

Tertullian
Strictly speaking he should be treated as a gifted Christian author but not as a Church Father because of his heresy. Only covers 1) and 6) anyway.

Cyprian of Carthage
Good statement about God's grace but does he speak about the afterlife at all here?

Cyril of Jerusalem
1) and 6) here with the exception that he did not write about reducing the term but rather of the prayers being of great benefit to the souls of departed.

Gregory of Nyssa
This could be a very good one and could cover 1), possibly 3) and 4) and definitely 5). However this is a classic example of a quote taken out of context. St Gregory had his own afterlife and salvation theory and this is only part of it. If we are taking this part are we ready to accept the rest of it? I doubt RCC is.

John Chrysostom
1) and 6) though again he is talking about some consolation and not about reducing the sentence term.

Augustine
The only relevant IMO. We have 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) here.


I see the concept of Purgatory to be very consistent and logical if we see it as Augustine -> Aquinas -> Florence -> Trent. But St Augustine is the dead end for me in this chain: I don't know where he got his ideas from.

All attempts I've seen so far to make it look like a crowd of Apostles and Eastern and African Church Fathers supporting the idea were not very successful. The quotes from the Bible don't look convincing. Eastern Fathers had their own views on afterlife; the fact that few of their ideas are also shared by the proponents of Purgatory does not make consensus patrum on the later. Same way I can tell you that my kitten is a) nice and furry, b) she lays eggs, c) she is a very good swimmer, d) she also can bark if she wants and e) she is rock steady on pheasant and woodcock. To show you the roots of my theory I'll show you some zoology book saying that cats are mammals and therefore furry. Would that be enough or very logical?

Slav

postcynical wrote: »

kelly1, Slav I'm sorry you won't continue the debate. But your posts were very interesting.

Me too. I can only see how the concept of Purgatory was developing from a number of other RCC-specific concepts but I cannot derive it directly from the Scripture or the early Church Fathers (apart from St Augustine). If such link does exist I would be very interested to know what is it. Not necessarily agree with it but at least to see some clear logic behind it.

Saved = accepting Jesus as our saviour and accepting His sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.

Not really. Saved = saved by Christ. Salvation is a God's mystery, we can never fully understand it or define its criteria (if the word criteria is applicable here at all). We can only guess and speculate but in most cases it's fuitless.

Saved != holiness

It depends on the definition of "holy". Generally, saved are offered to share God's holiness and to participate in it. In this sense saved = holiness.

Saved != saintliness

I think we can use the word saint as a synonym to saved if we admit that saint != spotless. Indeed, only Christ is; the rest of us as I said only have an opportunity to share and to participate in His true saintliness, holiness.

The saints are the ones who go straight to heaven. What is in between being saved and being a saint?

Purgatory as believed by RCC.
Saints are saved and saved are saints as believed by Reformed Churches.
In Orthodoxy it's probably a bit more complicated (or a lot simpler depending on your take of it). It's believed that Heaven and Hell don't exist as two separate entities. They only exist from our perspective. God Himself is Heaven for the righteous and Hell for the wicked as He equally loves both. It's like Sun that shines equally to an alive and a dead plant but it gives life to the alive one and burns the dead one. So it's not correct to say that saints go to heaven and others don't. They all go to the same place but experience it differently.

Surely God only begins to mould us when we accept His son but many of His works of art die before becoming His masterpieces.

I don't think God molds us. He built a path for us and showed us where it is. To go that path is our effort, He can only support us. As for the masterpieces, there is only one true masterpiece.

kelly1

Just a few questions I'd like to ask:

- If Purgatory is an invention of the Catholic Church, can someone please tell me when this happened and who invented it?

- Where were the objections to Purgatory prior to the Reformation?

- Can anyone tell me what 1 Cor 3:15 is about?

God bless,
Noel.

keano_afc

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/purgatory-and-1-cor-315

kelly1

keano_afc wrote: »

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/purgatory-and-1-cor-315

A quote from that article:

Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar with the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted, the dross. So too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

So could this fire which "purifies and removes" not be purgatory? Do you think this purifying fire causes no pain?

And to repeat what I said before, Purgatory isn't about salvation, it's about ridding us of (burning away) selfish tendencies.

Does it say anywhere in scripture that once we're forgiven, there will be no further punishment? i.e. that salvation means being saved from all punishment.

If scripture doesn't support this belief, who do you believe it?

P.S. any thoughts on the first 2 questions?

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The whole concept of us being punished for our sin when we leave this life denies the atonement of Christ. It says He bore all the big sins and left us to suffer for all the lesser ones.
According to Catholic doctrine, there is temporal and eternal punishment and not all sins merit hell (venial and mortal). Christ came to save us from eternal punishment but due to God's justice we still have to pay a temporal price for sin commited either by good works (charity) or suffering on earth or purgatory.

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of this verse:

Quote:
1 Peter 4:8 But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins.
What does it mean to cover sins?

This RC doctrine of sin is not found in the Bible, just more of man-made tradition. The Bible knows of no sin that does not separate us from God and thus merit hell. And James tells us:
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.


As to the meaning of 1 Peter 4:8, the right sense if found by first correctly translating the Greek. The word your version and the King James uses is charity, and in modern usage that suggests good works. But the Greek word is agapē, love. So the text is commanding we have constant love for one another, and is reminding us from the OT Scriptures that such love covers a multitude of sins. What is meant by this covering? Check the OT passage:
Proverbs 10:12 12 Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.

That is, while hatred leads to more bitterness, resentment and contention, love forgives offences, puts them away from memory, does not allow them to separate us from our brother.

Absolutely nothing to do with us doing good works so that our friends in purgatory will have their sins forgiven. We cannot atone for our own sins, let alone for the sins of others. Christ is the only atonement God accepts.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

- Can anyone tell me what 1 Cor 3:15 is about?

God bless,
Noel.

The context makes it plain:
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Our lives, the service we offer to God, is the subject. Christ is the foundation of our lives, but we build on that good works - faith, hope and love in all their manifestations. Evangelism of the lost, exhortation of the brethren, food to the hungry, shelter for the destitute, etc.

Those works offered in love to God are gold, silver, precious stones. But if they are done rather for motives of self-glorification, self-righteousness, etc. - then they are wood, hay, straw and we will receive no commendation from our Lord in that Day.

We will still be saved, but suffer loss of anything that was not done from a pure heart.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with us doing good works so that our friends in purgatory will have their sins forgiven. We cannot atone for our own sins, let alone for the sins of others. Christ is the only atonement God accepts.

Wolfsbane with respect, that's a kind of strawman there, "..nothing to do with us doing good workds so that our friends in purgatory will have their sins forgiven.."

Nobody said that. We just 'pray' for their souls....Catholics don't preach a 'works' based salvation and never did...They teach a 'grace' based salvation with the required presence of 'hope and charity'....We may be 'justified', and put right with God by accepting Jesus as our saviour initially, but true salvation ( in the Catholic sense ) means it MUST have the presence of repentance, faith, hope and Charity...as St Paul says in Romans..

We believe that our faith is made more perfect and complete in our actions....and that faith without good actions is dead.

Also, Noel raises a very interesting point that I too would love to know other posters thoughts on....

Namely..

Kelly: wrote:

Just a few questions I'd like to ask:

- If Purgatory is an invention of the Catholic Church, can someone please tell me when this happened and who invented it?

- Where were the objections to Purgatory prior to the Reformation?

- Can anyone tell me what 1 Cor 3:15 is about?

lmaopml

Thankyou Wolfsbane, you type quicker than me..lol...:D I've just mastered multi-quoting in my last post

..and good on you replying, I'll have a read..

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

The context makes it plain:
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Our lives, the service we offer to God, is the subject. Christ is the foundation of our lives, but we build on that good works - faith, hope and love in all their manifestations. Evangelism of the lost, exhortation of the brethren, food to the hungry, shelter for the destitute, etc. Totally agree!

Those works offered in love to God are gold, silver, precious stones. But if they are done rather for motives of self-glorification, self-righteousness, etc. - then they are wood, hay, straw and we will receive no commendation from our Lord in that Day. Totally agree

We will still be saved, but suffer loss of anything that was not done from a pure heart.This is the question? Loss ? We have nothing to lose when we die except salvation?..and we are told we won't lose this........ So, we WILL be saved, BUT - If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Yes, purifying fire to rid the will of wicked deeds or from the mouth out deeds.....This is what we call Purgatory...[/quote]

I hope my using colours in the quote is ok? I'm new to it, and I've seen it done before Getting fancy now..lol...

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

- If Purgatory is an invention of the Catholic Church, can someone please tell me when this happened and who invented it?

I'm very interested in it too. My best guess so far is that it's started from St Augustin theories which I think he develop in polemics with Origenism. Later with St Augustine theories as a starting point and with the help of the satisfaction view on atonement prevailing in the Western Church it developed further through a number of authors although until the 13th century only as opinions and theories. From the 13th century it started debating during the councils until finally it was accepted as a dogma in the 15th century at Florence and reaffirmed in the 16th century at Trent.

- Where were the objections to Purgatory prior to the Reformation?

Luther and Calvin were not the first (and certainly not the major) critics of Purgatory. As to the question where -- at that very Council of Florence, for example.

- Can anyone tell me what 1 Cor 3:15 is about?

This is good peice of advice with a lot to learn from. In my opinion the major points are:

1) Having Christ as a foundation does not automatically keep you from doing wrong. It's your own responsibility to erect a strong building on that foundation, to build it right and to use the appropriate materials.

2) Whatever building you have it will be tested by fire. By fire I understand facing God after death, times of Church persecution, etc.

3) Even if everything you built is burnt up but you still do have the foundation you still can be saved. The difference is that in this case you'll be a homeless victim of fire in the Gog's eyes. Not that you'll be somehow less welcome by God but you will have the feeling of loss, the loss of opportunities to double the given talents.

4) In 1 Cor 3 Paul is writing about the building of Church in Corinth rather then giving the guidelines for individual salvations (he actually rarely distinguish the two: see his analogy of Church with the human body where each member does not exist on its own). So all these equally apply to ecclesiastical matters I think. The recent outcome of the child abuse reports is exactly that sort of fire St Paul was warning us of. As we can see now Irish episcopate was using wrong materials; the construction might look good and strong few decades ago but now it's on fire. There are many more examples in the Church history (unfortunately far more than the lessons learned).

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

So could this fire which "purifies and removes" not be purgatory?

It could. The concept of Purgatory has more than purifying and removing fire. For instance, you can find that sort of fire in St. Gregory of Nyssa works but it's not Purgatory.

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

Loss ? We have nothing to lose when we die except salvation?..and we are told we won't lose this........ So, we WILL be saved, BUT - If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Yes, purifying fire to rid the will of wicked deeds or from the mouth out deeds.....This is what we call Purgatory...[/[/COLOR]quote]

No, not our wills from wicked deeds, but the deeds themselves - all the labours one offered to God that have been tested and proved as insincere, selfish in motivation ,etc. The reward expected is lost. The work is burned as worthless wood, hay and straw.

When we are resurrected on the Last Day we immediately go to be with the Lord in perfect, glorified bodies. Those who died beforehand had already received perfect spirits, and those alive on that Day will immediately have their spirits perfected just as much as their bodies.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

When a Christian dies today, he immediately goes to be with Christ, just as did the repentant thief. Absent from the body, present with the Lord.

Baggio

Deffo exists for me.... and many souls can be released from it through the power of the sacrficial mass and prayers of people still on earth, likewise those souls will pray for us in return for salvation etc.....have read/heard the souls especially are released from purgatory through the intercession of St.Michael The Archangel (guardian of purgatory) and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin...

have heard some amazing stories from people about the "see'ers" around the world, the approved ones and true ones that is...*who knows who is true or not? argument for another day!*....about some veryy famous people who made it to purgatory and need prayer for the release of them from there....names that i really didnt expect or perhaps being famous for one reason or another never really thought of them as just ordinary people who need prayer same as the rest of us!...
then again who am I to judge!!...

regards....Baggio...

rohatch

Interesting discussion, so are we all agreed then.

pugatory is NOT in the bible, limbo is not in the bible, it is an invention by the RC church.

I watched the intelligence squared debate on atheism/fundamentalism and S fry made this same point. The proposers never even disputed this.

I know a large amount of your posters are NOT catholic, but to those of you who are, you must ask yourself the question

If the catholic church can invent things like purgatory, limbo, and celibacy, and their whole upper management structure is rotten to the core (and will have to resign), what does it take to offend you?

Fanny Cradock

rohatch wrote: »

If the catholic church can invent things like purgatory, limbo, and celibacy, and their whole upper management structure is rotten to the core (and will have to resign), what does it take to offend you?

You rather pressume that all Catholics sit back and blithely accept whatever the RCC does or says.

rohatch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You rather pressume that all Catholics sit back and blithely accept whatever the RCC does or says.

No the opposite.

Most catholic's ignore the church completely using it only for sacremental occasions.

Fanny Cradock

rohatch wrote: »

No the opposite.

Most catholic's ignore the church completely using it only for sacremental occasions.

Then you conflate cultural Catholics - people for whom the RCC is largely an irrelevance - with those who see the RCC as more central to their lives. If most Catholics ignore the Church, why would they be at all bothered by nitty gritty doctrinal hot potatoes about pugatory, for instance?

Again, and in a differtent context to above, when discussing the opinions of cultural Catholics as well as those for whom the Church is more central, you assume that both groups aren`t critical of certain social (as opposed to spiritual) stances taken by the Church. For example, the RCC`s stance on contraception and abortion gets many Catholics quite hot under the collar. For that matter, I know that the vast majority of Catholics, irrespective of how often they say their Hail Mary`s, get very offended when they think of the Church`s involvement in the child sexual abuse cases.

So, again, what is your point? Bescause it seems to me that your pithy one-liner is not only aimless, it`s downright unfair.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

I'm very interested in it too. My best guess so far is that it's started from St Augustin theories which I think he develop in polemics with Origenism. Later with St Augustine theories as a starting point and with the help of the satisfaction view on atonement prevailing in the Western Church it developed further through a number of authors although until the 13th century only as opinions and theories. From the 13th century it started debating during the councils until finally it was accepted as a dogma in the 15th century at Florence and reaffirmed in the 16th century at Trent.

Hello Slav, it goes back a bit further than that. In the Christian tradition, prayers for the dead are recorded back as far as the 2nd century. And as there's no point in praying for those in hell or heaven, it could only be for souls in purgatory. It's in the writings of the Church Fathers and there are also inscriptions in the roman catacombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_for_the_dead#In_the_Christian_tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Purgatory

According to what I read on Wiki, purgatory was first dogmatically defined at the council of Lyon in 1254.

Slav wrote: »

Luther and Calvin were not the first (and certainly not the major) critics of Purgatory. As to the question where -- at that very Council of Florence, for example.

Would you have a link about the objections at Florence please?

rohatch

rohatch wrote: »

If the catholic church can invent things like purgatory, limbo, and celibacy, and their whole upper management structure is rotten to the core (and will have to resign), what does it take to offend you?

I got this wrong. It should be

If the catholic church can invent purgatory, limbo, and celibacy, (not in the bible), and their whole upper management structure is rotten to the core, what will it take to offend the rationalisation of your beliefs?

lmaopml

rohatch wrote: »

I got this wrong. It should be

If the catholic church can invent purgatory, limbo, and celibacy, (not in the bible), and their whole upper management structure is rotten to the core, what will it take to offend the rationalisation of your beliefs?

Rohatch, with respect, have you even read the bible? .....

'to offend the rationalisation of your beliefs..' LOL!!

Well, to be quite frank, it's rather more offensive when someone who has a clearly simplistic and black and white way of viewing 'billions' of Catholics, thinks they are the epitome of rationality :rolleyes: and all those other billions of people worldwide of various different faiths are somehow falling short of the mark.... What a load of old cobblers....

This modesty is underwhelming....:pac:

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

it goes back a bit further than that. In the Christian tradition, prayers for the dead are recorded back as far as the 2nd century.

If Roman Church in relation to Purgatory only taught that we can pray for the passed away and that our prayers and charity would be of some benefit for them then there would be no issues with that whatsoever from the patristic heritage perspective. Unfortunately the Catholic Purgatory is more then that.

And as there's no point in praying for those in hell or heaven

Among some other objections, this view eliminates the need for the final judgment as far as I see it.

it could only be for souls in purgatory. It's in the writings of the Church Fathers and there are also inscriptions in the roman catacombs.

Well, this is precisely the question: what is in Church Fathers writings and what is not. I have briefly covered that in post 67 in this thread.

According to what I read on Wiki, purgatory was first dogmatically defined at the council of Lyon in 1254.

It has been discussed on a number of councils starting from the 13th century. Strictly speaking, only Trent dogmatically defined it as it first used the formula "if anyone does not confess that (...), be anathema". Neither First Lyon nor Florence used that formula but the way the teaching was worded at Florence is closer to the one of Trent and so it reflects more mature understanding of Purgatory.

Would you have a link about the objections at Florence please?

Unfortunate English translations of original St. Mark of Eupesus works practically don't exists (I could not find them anyway).

You can find some details about Mark of Eupesus and the Council of Florence here:

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.05.htm

and here:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

lmaopml said:

No, not our wills from wicked deeds, but the deeds themselves - all the labours one offered to God that have been tested and proved as insincere, selfish in motivation ,etc. The reward expected is lost. The work is burned as worthless wood, hay and straw.

When we are resurrected on the Last Day we immediately go to be with the Lord in perfect, glorified bodies. Those who died beforehand had already received perfect spirits, and those alive on that Day will immediately have their spirits perfected just as much as their bodies.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

When a Christian dies today, he immediately goes to be with Christ, just as did the repentant thief. Absent from the body, present with the Lord.

With the utmost respect, and I sincerely mean that Wolfsbane. I understand that we come from the same 'Christianity' but obviously we have different interpretations...and hey that's ok, I, generally speaking have chosen the Catholic way for many reasons...and I do understand that there are areas where we 'cross' each other in faith that are far more important than the dogma of purgatory. It's a minor, in the bigger scheme of things, and I know that anybody posting on this board who falls under the banner of Christian undoubtedly means well....Even some of the 'majors' are minors in some ways, because I don't think we do the important stuff any different to eachother..imo of course.

We would say that the 'deeds' are done, and they can't be 'purified by fire' anymore, and take the meaning to refer to the soul of the person who has passed. There is a semi colon there for a reason...Although I know the ancients never used punctuation as we know it - mores the pity lol...


My intention isn't to argue the dogma of purgatory, but to put the opening posts mind at ease when questioning the issue.......The 'concept' of purgatory is a long and old one- the ancient Jews prayed for their dead, and continue even today to do so for 11 months after they lose a loved one.....There would be no point in praying for people who have passed if everything is all set up and there is only 'heaven' and 'hell'.....Catholics believe there is a third place.....so too do some Protestants ( I think )??

I believe it's fairly clear, (although I understand different people have different interpretations from the bible) and from the early Church, that there was / is a third place, and that it was common practice amongst the earliest Christians and before Christianity to pray for the souls of the dead.


My reason for posting on the topic ( as I view it as a VERY small area of contention ) is to assure the op that the Catholic church didn't just pull it out of their back pocket in the middle ages.....


I'll post another post with reference to early Church teaching, and also another with quotes from the bible that allude to a need for a cleansing entirely before we behold God in heaven, and the importance of 'sin' and of 'holiness' and the need to truely confess...We believe that we are saved by Grace and by accepting Jesus as our saviour, but that it is a working relationship, and we can, and do, fall from Grace by our actions, thoughts, and egos....We also believe there is a 'third' place, which is very clear in scripture.


I hope this post is taken the way it is meant, with respect, because I think everybody means well at the end of the day....and it's a minor imo.

lmaopml

Some early Church teaching: ( again, this is strictly to ensure the op knows the concept of purgatory is around a very long time ) the dates are included...


The Acts of Paul and Thecla


"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).


Abercius


"The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).


The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity


"[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).


Tertullian


"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).


Gregory of Nyssa


"If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).


John Chrysostom


"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

"Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf" (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).


Augustine


"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

Some early Church teaching: ( again, this is strictly to ensure the op knows the concept of purgatory is around a very long time ) the dates are included...

The Acts of Paul and Thecla
...

Abercius
...

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity
...

Tertullian
...

Cyprian of Carthage
...

Cyril of Jerusalem
...

Gregory of Nyssa
...

John Chrysostom
...

Augustine
...

Hmm... I have a strange feeling I have already seen these quotes somewhere....

lmaopml

.....and some quotes from the bible itself...

Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48

Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God. Hebrews 12:14

For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body.
James 3:2

There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.
Revelations 21:27

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death.
There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. 1John 5:16-17

But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.
15 Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1: 14-15
11 Serve ye the Lord with fear: and rejoice unto him with trembling.
12 Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way.2 psalms 12: 11-12

23 If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee;
24 Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift.
25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes,
whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer,
and thou be cast into prison. Matthew 5 23-26

41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten.
But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened,
because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead,
thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 2 Macc 12 41-45

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:
13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire;
and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss (;) but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 1 Corr 3 12-15

18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh,
but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 1 Peter 3 18-20

16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain:
17 But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day:
and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest. 2 Timothy 1 16:18

29 Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all?
why are they then baptized for them? 30 Why also are we in danger every hour? 1 Cor 15 29-30


Red, my own emphasis.

lmaopml

Slav wrote: »

Hmm... I have a strange feeling I have already seen these quotes somewhere....

LOL, let's face it, the reason why, is that they are 'around' a VERY long time


...obviously, looking at the dates, we can 'reject' or 'accept'....some do and obviously some 'don't'!

...nonetheless, they're 'there'! We MUST deal with em

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

...nonetheless, they're 'there'! We MUST deal with em

Must? Oh, please! Are we going to deal with them every 2 pages in this thread?

lmaopml

"Are we going to deal with them every 2 pages in this thread?"


If needs be; but I hope not Slav..lol...

as I said, I'm answering the op...not 'evangelising'..as such. I believe that the concept of purgatory, while not officially 'named' has been there for a very very very ( and lots of other very's ) long time...even to the people our church was the penultimate of 'the Jews'....

...and never has praying for our passed 'loved ones' been condemned...?? Except recently.

(We)..Catholics, believe that the body of Christ contains 'All' Christians...passed and present, and that we are forever joined in unity and prayer until the final judgement, and that Jesus and his sacrifice is forever present for us today, those yesterday, and those of tomorrow....


Catholics live in 'hope' of a benevolent God.

rohatch

Is the bible the word of god?
Was it written before of after the alleged JC?
Did the catholic church design the bible by destoying all the other gospels?

You cannot post something that happened 200 - 400 years AD and imply they meant to put it in the bible.

Purgatory NOT in the bible,
Limbo NOT in the bible,
Celibacy NOT in the bible,
Wearing of a uniform NOT in the bible,
Owning palaces NOT in the bible,
Lack of female power etc



check out the debate
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055756555

lmaopml

rohatch wrote: »

Is the bible the word of god? YES!
Was it written before of after the alleged JC? Both before and after! We know when....LOL
Did the catholic church design the bible by destoying all the other gospels? Dan Brown eat yer heart out....lol...Conspiracy Theorists :rolleyes:

You cannot post something that happened 200 - 400 years AD and imply they meant to put it in the bible. They are the Church Fathers ; incredulous that you refute something you know so little about...

Purgatory NOT in the bible,
Limbo NOT in the bible,
Celibacy NOT in the bible,
Wearing of a uniform NOT in the bible,
Owning palaces NOT in the bible,
Lack of female power etc



check out the debate
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055756555

You, my friend, have clearly never read the bible. Your knowledge is self evident! ie None ...and what's the 'debate' got to do with anything on this thread...??

I'll have a better look at it later, just saw Dicky ( If I were a yorkee bar I'd eat myself ) Dawkins, and decided to have my dinner first.....

Stephentlig

Purgatory NOT in the bible,

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

Celibacy NOT in the bible,

chruch celibacy is church practice not dogma


Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Owning palaces NOT in the bible,

eh does king solomon ring a bell?

finally it doesnt have to be in the bible for it to be true, as even scripture alone disproves the ''scripture alone'' theory. the word ''Bible'' isnt even in the bible yet you call it a ''bible''. the following are scriptural qoutes that disprove bible alone theology.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

I am not interested in a debate with you or anyone else here, but if your interested in one and are convinced of your position, then e-mail John Salza and see how far you get www.scripturecatholic.com

God bless
Stephen


check out the debate
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055756555

lmaopml

Stephentlig wrote: »

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.


chruch celibacy is church practice not dogma


Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.




eh does king solomon ring a bell?

finally it doesnt have to be in the bible for it to be true, as even scripture alone disproves the ''scripture alone'' theory. the word ''Bible'' isnt even in the bible yet you call it a ''bible''. the following are scriptural qoutes that disprove bible alone theology.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

I am not interested in a debate with you or anyone else here, but if your interested in one and are convinced of your position, then e-mail John Salza and see how far you get www.scripturecatholic.com

God bless
Stephen


check out the debate
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055756555

Well Stephenlig, I am a Catholic, and understand the the Vulgate and the transcribing of St. Jerome, and the teaching within my faith...and about the importance of the Fathers in doing so......and of course, without a shadow of doubt 'tradition' and understanding 'not' to allign oneself with something that is beyond reason, the bible is meant to last forever ( that's the genius...:), which is truely inspired..imo of course ) and have meaning to all who 'seek' it truthfully, and with historical context......by no means do I think non belief in 'purgatory' is a huge area of contention....but something that I wish and would 'like' others to understand in a purely magnanimous way about Catholicism, and have people take comfort in....

I ( personally) would prefer it if we 'discussed' the topic right here, rather than a stand-off??????? by 'email'?????????


*Grumbles* Stupid standoffs!!!

Nahhh, don't think so!

Come back here and discuss, your more than welcome, and that comes from a friend?

God bless..

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

by no means do I think non belief in 'purgatory' is a huge area of contention

I appreciate your optimism but I think history proved the opposite: Purgatory was the major obstacle in East-West reunion in 13-15 centuries and then it ignited Reformation (at least the theological part of the movement).

but something that I wish and would 'like' others to understand in a purely magnanimous way about Catholicism, and have people take comfort in...

Then please educate us!..

rohatch

lmaopml wrote: »

You, my friend, have clearly never read the bible. Your knowledge is self evident! ie None ...and what's the 'debate' got to do with anything on this thread...??

I'll have a better look at it later, just saw Dicky ( If I were a yorkee bar I'd eat myself ) Dawkins, and decided to have my dinner first.....

Of course I have read the bible, I had it force fed down my throat in primary school and then as luck would have it the christian brothers in the late 70's. This was THE golden age of education in our pathetic little country. I can assure you that the brothers would have no problem whatsoever of BEATING it into you.