Purgatory is Jewish and makes sense

[BNR32FAN]

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I do not think you know what your talking about. I hate to tell you bud but the official Catholic Catechism actually teaches it. (See CCC 1030-1032)

The Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in purgatory and rejected both the councils of Florence and Trent.

 

[Athanasias]

The Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in purgatory and rejected both the councils of Florence and Trent.

Yeah I well I am talking about the Catholic and Jewish religions not the Eastern or Oriental orthodox. That is why I quoted the Catholic Catechism and Jewish encyclopedia.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not a stretch for 3 giants in the faith.

St. Augustine

Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in your anger…. In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire….For it is said, “He shall be saved, but as if by fire” (1 Cor 3:15). And because it is said, “he shall be saved,” little is thought of that fire. Yet, plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything man can suffer in this life. (Explanations of the Psalms 37.3 – Quoted in Jurgens @ 1467)

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind [purification by fire] may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. (Commentary on 1 Cor 3 in the Enchiridion, 69)

St Cyprian

It is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing to instantly receive the reward of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged as by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering [martyrdom]. It is one thing, in the end, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord(Epistle 51.20 comparing Martyrdom to purgation).

St. Thomas Aquinas

We must therefore say that the very venial sins that insinuate themselves into those who have a care for earthly things, are designated by wood, hay, and stubble. For just as these are stored in a house, without belonging to the substance of the house, and can be burnt, while the house is saved, so also venial sins are multiplied in a man, while the spiritual edifice remains, and for them, man suffers fire, either of temporal trials in this life, or of purgatory after this life, and yet he is saved for ever. (Summa, I, IIae 89.2)

I do respect Aquinas.
I also believed this when I was catholic.
But as I read it on my own, it's impossible to come to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 3 is speaking about purgatory.

Who or What Is the Fire Burning?
Discussion in 'Exposition & Bible Study' started by GodsGrace101, Wednesday at 10:48 AM.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That is right. Now your getting it! Pope Benedict XVI even said Jesus Christ himself and his loving gaze is the fire that purges us in purgatory in his encyclical Spe Salvi!

Not all catholic theologians believe in the concept of purgatory and if the church ever reneged and that, it would be the "end" of the CC.

 

[Athanasias]

Not all catholic theologians believe in the concept of purgatory and if the church ever reneged and that, it would be the "end" of the CC.

Well your right on that. Not all theologians do believe in purgatory. Catholic ones should as that is what their faith teaches officially and the Jews and early Fathers taught, but even some Catholic theologians deny many truths of the faith like Jesus being God or having a physical resurrection even though the Church teaches both of those truths as well.

Its not about what some theologians teach but what the Catholic Church herself teaches. Many protestants ones do not believe in purgatory although some protestants do. For example CS Lewis a protestant apologist did believe in purgatory.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well your right on that. Not all theologians do believe in purgatory. Catholic ones should as that is what their faith teaches officially and the Jews and early Fathers taught, but even some Catholic theologians deny many truths of the faith like Jesus being God or having a physical resurrection even though the Church teaches both of those truths as well.

Its not about what some theologians teach but what the Catholic Church herself teaches. Many protestants ones do not believe in purgatory although some protestants do. For example CS Lewis a protestant apologist did believe in purgatory.

Yes, A, I know about CS Lewis. One of my favorite writers.
I was talking about CATHOLIC theologians...
You mean some CATHOLIC theologians believe Jesus was not God or had a physical resurrection?
I never heard of this.
It's SICK.

 

[Athanasias]

Yes, A, I know about CS Lewis. One of my favorite writers.
I was talking about CATHOLIC theologians...
You mean some CATHOLIC theologians believe Jesus was not God or had a physical resurrection?
I never heard of this.
It's SICK.

Yes, A, I know about CS Lewis. One of my favorite writers.
I was talking about CATHOLIC theologians...
You mean some CATHOLIC theologians believe Jesus was not God or had a physical resurrection?
I never heard of this.
It's SICK.

Oh yes. There are liberal theologians of all demoninations who deny Christian teachings. In the Catholic Church there are many dissenting theologians both clergy and laity alike. Fr. Richard McBrian denied that Jesus ever founded the Catholic Church and denied the virginal conception of Jesus, Fr. Karl Rahner denied transubstantiation in the Eucharist, Fr. James Martin is pro-homosexual and wants to change the catechism teaching on homosexuals to normalize it. You also have Fr. Raymond Brown a scripture scholar who denied apostolic succession from priest and Bishops to the apostles, Or Sr. Joan Chittistter who calls for women priest, Or Fr. Charles Curran is promotes birth control, Fr. Arius was a heretic who denied Jesus was eternal God and was condemned at the council of Nicea and Constantinople ETC ETC

You see dissenting is nothing new.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Oh yes. There are liberal theologians of all demoninations who deny Christian teachings. In the Catholic Church there are many dissenting theologians both clergy and laity alike. Fr. Richard McBrian denied that Jesus ever founded the Catholic Church and denied the virginal conception of Jesus, Fr. Karl Rahner denied transubstantiation in the Eucharist, Fr. James Martin is pro-homosexual and wants to change the catechism teaching on homosexuals to normalize it. You also have Fr. Raymond Brown a scripture scholar who denied apostolic succession from priest and Bishops to the apostles, Or Sr. Joan Chittistter who calls for women priest, Or Fr. Charles Curran is promotes birth control, Fr. Arius was a heretic who denied Jesus was eternal God and was condemned at the council of Nicea and Constantinople ETC ETC

You see dissenting is nothing new.

I know that all priests don't agree with each other and also not all bishops.

I'm very surprised to hear that some catholic theologians don't believe in the virgin birth. Even protestants believe this...I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Some do not believe in transubstantiation but in the Real Presence... I DO believe this is an important dogma of the CC.

I won't get into homosexuality and women priests...the bible is clear and the CC has always been strong in its moral issues.

I do have to say that I agree that Jesus did not found the CC. He did begin something new, and I do believe in Apostolic succession; however, I don't believe it could be said that what was founded was the CC. It BECAME the CC, or universal church.

 

[Athanasias]

I know that all priests don't agree with each other and also not all bishops.

I'm very surprised to hear that some catholic theologians don't believe in the virgin birth. Even protestants believe this...I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Some do not believe in transubstantiation but in the Real Presence... I DO believe this is an important dogma of the CC.

I won't get into homosexuality and women priests...the bible is clear and the CC has always been strong in its moral issues.

I do have to say that I agree that Jesus did not found the CC. He did begin something new, and I do believe in Apostolic succession; however, I don't believe it could be said that what was founded was the CC. It BECAME the CC, or universal church.

Well you have to understand the modernist roots that many of these theologians and bible scholars are influenced by. Younger priest and theologians do not have these trappings.

 

[Athanasias]

Largely since the 1960's till about early to mid 90's there was much confusion and trouble in many Catholic seminaries and schools and parishes. There is a great book that documents much of this in American seminaries. This trickled down to liberal teachings and morals and many of the faithful loosing faith and leaving the Church or picking and choosing what they wanted to believe. If you held to what the Church taught they said you were being "Rigid" among other things. LOL Sounds like what Pope Francis called the young faithful clergy as he is of this age group.

 

[prodromos]

Not a stretch for 3 giants in the faith.

St. Augustine

Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in your anger…. In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire….For it is said, “He shall be saved, but as if by fire” (1 Cor 3:15). And because it is said, “he shall be saved,” little is thought of that fire. Yet, plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything man can suffer in this life. (Explanations of the Psalms 37.3 – Quoted in Jurgens @ 1467)

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind [purification by fire] may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. (Commentary on 1 Cor 3 in the Enchiridion, 69)

St Cyprian

It is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing to instantly receive the reward of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged as by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering [martyrdom]. It is one thing, in the end, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord(Epistle 51.20 comparing Martyrdom to purgation).

St. Thomas Aquinas

We must therefore say that the very venial sins that insinuate themselves into those who have a care for earthly things, are designated by wood, hay, and stubble. For just as these are stored in a house, without belonging to the substance of the house, and can be burnt, while the house is saved, so also venial sins are multiplied in a man, while the spiritual edifice remains, and for them, man suffers fire, either of temporal trials in this life, or of purgatory after this life, and yet he is saved for ever. (Summa, I, IIae 89.2)

What St Cyprian has written is not consistent with RC teaching on purgatory. He states that those suffering before the final judgement remain there until that day.

 

[prodromos]

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I do not think you know what your talking about. I hate to tell you bud but the official Catholic Catechism actually teaches it. (See CCC 1030-1032)

I think he is referring to us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What St Cyprian has written is not consistent with RC teaching on purgatory. He states that those suffering before the final judgement remain there until that day.

Lol it’s almost like every time someone lights a match in the Bible the RCC claims its purgatory.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well your right on that. Not all theologians do believe in purgatory. Catholic ones should as that is what their faith teaches officially and the Jews and early Fathers taught, but even some Catholic theologians deny many truths of the faith like Jesus being God or having a physical resurrection even though the Church teaches both of those truths as well.

Its not about what some theologians teach but what the Catholic Church herself teaches. Many protestants ones do not believe in purgatory although some protestants do. For example CS Lewis a protestant apologist did believe in purgatory.

The thing I think most people reject is that Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t pay for all our sins. That’s the big problem. Why would Jesus’ sacrifice pay for mortal sins but not venial sins? If we didn’t have to suffer for our greater sins what makes the RCC think that we would have to pay for our lesser sins? There’s no scriptural basis to support this idea.

 

[Athanasias]

The thing I think most people reject is that Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t pay for all our sins. That’s the big problem. Why would Jesus’ sacrifice pay for mortal sins but not venial sins? If we didn’t have to suffer for our greater sins what makes the RCC think that we would have to pay for our lesser sins? There’s no scriptural basis to support this idea.

No We believe that Christ did pay for all sins on the cross by his death and resurrection(mortal and venial) . He allows temporal penalties or suffering in this life or the next for growth in holiness, not because his cross did not pay for it all. The difference between us is how that saving grace is applied to us personally. We believe it is applied in time and space by the gift of faith and baptism and confession and temporal penalties are satisfied from the gift of indulgences , or suffering in this life or after this life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No We believe that Christ did pay for all sins on the cross by his death and resurrection(mortal and venial) . He allows temporal penalties or suffering in this life or the next for growth in holiness, not because his cross did not pay for it all. The difference between us is how that is applied to us personally. We believe it is applied in time and space by the gift of faith and baptism and confession and temporal penalties are satisfied from the gift of indulgences and sufferings.

I usually just try to avoid trying to understand things that are not directly discussed in the Bible to ensure that I don’t believe or teach things that are incorrect. Understanding specific details of how our sins are removed is not necessary for salvation so long as we understand that it is Jesus who paid for them.

 

[Athanasias]

I usually just try to avoid trying to understand things that are not directly discussed in the Bible to ensure that I don’t believe or teach things that are incorrect. Understanding specific details of how our sins are removed is not necessary for salvation so long as we understand that it is Jesus who paid for them.

God always gives abundantly So we believe he revealed abundantly more truths either implicit or explicit in scripture and apostolic tradition than just that He is necessary for salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No We believe that Christ did pay for all sins on the cross by his death and resurrection(mortal and venial) . He allows temporal penalties or suffering in this life or the next for growth in holiness, not because his cross did not pay for it all. The difference between us is how that saving grace is applied to us personally. We believe it is applied in time and space by the gift of faith and baptism and confession and temporal penalties are satisfied from the gift of indulgences , or suffering in this life or after this life.

That is not what is stated in the catechism. It specifically states quote

“He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come”.

The idea is that all sins are not forgiven in this world by Christ’s sacrifice and must be forgiven in the afterlife thru suffering. This idea contradicts Colossians 1:22 1 Corinthians 6:11 1 John 2:12 and Romans 5:9-10

Notice that forgiveness is complete and paid in full. All of these are written in the past tense indicating this has already taken place.

 

[Athanasias]

That is not what is stated in the catechism. It specifically states quote

“He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come”.

The idea is that all sins are not forgiven in this world by Christ’s sacrifice and must be forgiven in the afterlife thru suffering. This idea contradicts Colossians 1:22 1 Corinthians 6:11 1 John 2:12 and Romans 5:9-10

Notice that forgiveness is complete and paid in full. All of these are written in the past tense indicating this has already taken place.

I am glad your reading the Catechism, its one of the best ways to study the bible. Keep reading. I think your misunderstanding the biblical stance here though. Christ died for all your sins and the whole worlds and paid the price by his cross and resurrection and ascension. The graces that He won for us and enter us into this sacrifice are given in time and space through His gifts of faith, the sacraments of baptism, eucharist etc. Baptism iniitally saves you and washes away all sins you had up till that point(Ezekiel 36:25-26, Act 2:38-39, Act 22:16, Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:19-21).

But what happens when a person sins or falls into sin after he has been baptized? Jesus is clear that we need to repent and confess our sins to be forgiven after that. That is another sacrament.

"if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:8-9).

This is also why Jesus tells us we need to pray the Our father which ask God to "forgive us our trespasses", and also why Jesus gave his apostle the power to forgive sins and hear confession sacramentally(Jn 20:21-23)

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am glad your reading the Catechism, its one of the best ways to study the bible. Keep reading. I think your misunderstanding the biblical stance here though. Christ died for all your sins and the whole worlds and paid the price by his cross and resurrection and ascension. The graces that He won for us and enter us into this sacrifice are given in time and space through His gifts of faith, the sacraments of baptism, eucharist etc. Baptism iniitally saves you and washes away all sins you had up till that point(Ezekiel 36:25-26, Act 2:38-39, Act 22:16, Titus 3:5-7, 1 Peter 3:19-21).

But what happens when a person sins or falls into sin after he has been baptized? Jesus is clear that we need to repent and confess our sins to be forgiven after that. That is another sacrament.

"if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:8-9).

This is also why Jesus tells us we need to pray the Our father which ask God to "forgive us our trespasses", and also why Jesus gave his apostle the power to forgive sins and hear confession sacramentally(Jn 20:21-23)

While I do believe confession is a good thing and I do confess my sins and ask for forgiveness, the Bible says we are saved by faith not confession. To my knowledge the Bible does not say if you don’t confess your sins you won’t be forgiven. Keep in mind when Paul wrote his epistles to the Colossians, the Corinthians, and the Romans he had no idea if they had unconfessed sins or not, but he was certain that their sins were forgiven. He wrote very boldly in regards to this.