A question to Roman Catholics about Purgatory

BobRyan said:

1. No books were added to the Bible after 100 A.D. so nobody was "waiting 100's of years"

Click to expand...

double ugh, THERE WAS NO BIBLE IN 100 AD

BobRyan said:

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

Click to expand...

In my experience, this is the mantra of protesntism

concretecamper said:

Ugh, none of the NT writers had any idea they were writing what would be know as the Bible.

Click to expand...

Until you read the end of 2 Peter 3 and 1 Thess 2.

2 Peter 3:15 Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter includes the writing of Paul in scripture and writes as if the contemporary readers already know this is a fact.

Paul points out the same detail in 1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe

Each of these Bible details matter even when found to be inconvenient scripture

BobRyan said: ↑
1. when we read those verses in Mark 7 we are seeing an argument for sola-scriptura vs tradition.
2. Jesus said to follow his example. Christians tend to do that.

concretecamper said:

adding to scripture, something that shouldn't be done

Click to expand...

But we can read...

reading the actual words we find this - sola scriptura testing method demonstrated by Christ

Mark 7;
6 But He said to them...
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So there we see "Word of God" = "Commandment of God" = "Moses said"
And it is in opposition to "your tradition" , "tradition of men", "Commandments of men"

=====================

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

By contrast we have this in Acts 17:11 fully agreeing with the method of Christ in Mark 7

"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

concretecamper said:

In my experience, this is the mantra of protesntism

Click to expand...

In my experience Acts 17:11 and Mark 7 are both in the Protestant Bible and in the Catholic one as well.

BobRyan said:

2 Peter 3:15 Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Click to expand...

some people misunderstood Paul teaching were hard, and many misunderstood them, just like some misunderstood the teachings of the Tanakh.

You can do what Peter warns against and twist scripture to suit your needs, but Peter is very clear what will happen.

BobRyan said:

BobRyan said: ↑
1. when we read those verses in Mark 7 we are seeing an argument for sola-scriptura vs tradition.
2. Jesus said to follow his example. Christians tend to do that.



But we can read...

reading the actual words we find this - sola scriptura testing method demonstrated by Christ

Mark 7;
6 But He said to them...
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So there we see "Word of God" = "Commandment of God" = "Moses said"
And it is in opposition to "your tradition" , "tradition of men", "Commandments of men"

=====================

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

By contrast we have this in Acts 17:11 fully agreeing with the method of Christ in Mark 7

"they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11



In my experience Acts 17:11 and Mark 7 are both in the Protestant Bible and in the Catholic one as well.

Click to expand...

copy and paste the same tired verses a fourth time, it's still not gonna mean what you need it to mean.

concretecamper said:

copy and paste the same tired verses a fourth time, it's still not gonna mean what you need it to mean.

Click to expand...

depends on if someone is actually reading those scriptures and whether they consider the scripture posted to be "The Word of God" or simply "tired verses of scripture that do not agree with some preferences of the one reading them"

concretecamper said:

some people misunderstood Paul teaching were hard, and many misunderstood them, just like some misunderstood the teachings of the Tanakh.
.

Click to expand...

The detail you skimmed over is the one where Peter classes Paul's writings with "the rest of scripture" and where Paul says in 1 Thess 2 that his writing was being accepted as the written "Word of God".

Now what is truly "odd" is that you are objecting here even though both Catholics and Protestants agree on the 27 books of the New Testament text - being included in scripture.

BobRyan said:

27 books of the New Testament text

Click to expand...

ugh, we are not talking about the 27 books.

Simple answer to decide this debate, QUOTE me the chapter and verse in scripture that tells us all which books are to be included in the NT. Was it Paul who published the TOC . No wait, it was James?

BobRyan said:

I gather that the catholic church argues that this belief does not come from the Bible.

Here is an example of that claim about it not being in the Bible from EWTN
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Purgatory (Appendix II) (New Advent)

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=348599&language=en

"I answer that, nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church. ©​

... Father Echert"​

Click to expand...

I believe that Saint Thomas Aquinas was discussing the location of purgatory, "situation" referring to WHERE Purgatory might be.

BobRyan said:

I gather that the catholic church argues that this belief does not come from the Bible.

Here is an example of that claim about it not being in the Bible from EWTN
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Purgatory (Appendix II) (New Advent)

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=348599&language=en

"I answer that, nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church. ©​

... Father Echert"​

Click to expand...

Your argument rests on treating isolated proof‑texts as self‑interpreting and as establishing sola scriptura, yet neither Mark 7 nor Acts 17 teaches that Scripture is the only rule of faith; both passages condemn human traditions that nullify God’s command (Mark 7:7–13), not the apostolic Tradition that Christ commanded the Church to teach (Matt 28:19–20; 2 Thess 2:15). Your repeated claim that Peter “includes Paul’s letters in Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15–16 ) is true, but it does not establish a complete New Testament canon, nor does Scripture ever list its own contents—hence @Valletta is correct to note that Aquinas was discussing the location of purgatory, not denying its scriptural basis (e.g., 2 Macc 12:44–46; 1 Cor 3:13–15). Catholic dogma teaches that the canon is known through the Church’s authority (Council of Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Trent, Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis), and St Thomas explicitly affirms that divine revelation is transmitted through Scripture and apostolic Tradition (ST II–II q.1 a.10). Moreover, Aquinas teaches that post‑mortem purification follows necessarily from God’s justice and the soul’s final orientation toward Him (ST Suppl. q.71–72), which coheres with Paul’s teaching that some are “saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Thus a Catholic reply to your position is simply that the Church rejects both the private‑judgement hermeneutic that you assume and the sola scriptura framework your claim reads into the text; instead, the Catholic Church receives Scripture within the living Tradition that produced its canon, interprets it authentically (Dei Verbum 10), and teaches purgatory as a truth implicitly present in Scripture and explicitly clarified in Tradition, in continuity with the theological principles articulated by St Thomas.

read thru

Xeno.of.athens said:

Your argument rests on treating isolated proof‑texts as self‑interpreting and as establishing sola scriptura, yet neither Mark 7 nor Acts 17 teaches that Scripture is the only rule of faith

Click to expand...

Actually it is agreed that Purgatory is not in the Bible at all. Where differences arise is in regard to conclusions we make about doctrines that do not come from the Bible. Some would argue that purgatory is not a Bible based doctrine and so is in a questionable category of speculation

Xeno.of.athens said:

; both passages condemn human traditions that nullify God’s command (Mark 7:7–13), not the apostolic Tradition

Click to expand...

Both the Jews in Mark 7 and the Catholic church claim they have infallible tradition.

1 John 4 says to test everything.

Mark 7 condemns the idea that later tradition can arise , and conflict with Bible teaching, and still be trusted.

Xeno.of.athens said:

. Your repeated claim that Peter “includes Paul’s letters in Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15–16 ) is true, but it does not establish a complete New Testament canon

Click to expand...

thankfully we don't have disputes about the 27 books of the NT written in the first century as being included in the NT text.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Aquinas was discussing the location of purgatory, not denying its scriptural basis (e.g., 2 Macc 12:44–46; 1 Cor 3:13–15).

Click to expand...

Neither Macc 12 nor 1 Cor 3 say anything about some one being burned or tormented after they die nor do either of those texts say that someone can be benefited by something we do in this life to help them while they are dead (which is the whole point of indulgences for those in purgatory)

Xeno.of.athens said:

Aquinas teaches that post‑mortem purification follows necessarily from God’s justice and the soul’s final orientation toward Him

Click to expand...

God is just even in a Bible scenario where no purgatory exists.
When a born again saved person dies they already "have peace with God" even before they die according to Rom 5:1-2

Xeno.of.athens said:

(ST Suppl. q.71–72), which coheres with Paul’s teaching that some are “saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15).

Click to expand...

1 Cor 3 does not say anything about someone being burned by fire either before or after they die.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The Catholic Church receives Scripture within the living Tradition that produced its canon, interprets it authentically (Dei Verbum 10), and teaches purgatory as a truth implicitly present in Scripture

Click to expand...

It is absent from scripture , but as you note some people suggest or at least imply that it exists in the doctrines that they hold to.

Xeno.of.athens said:

and explicitly clarified in Tradition,

Click to expand...

explicitly stated in some traditions. Not at all stated in the Bible

BobRyan said:

Actually it is agreed that Purgatory is not in the Bible at all.

Click to expand...

The Bible states nothing unclean can enter Heaven. In fact it is simply a name used for the purification spoken of in the Bible.

BobRyan said:

Actually it is agreed that Purgatory is not in the Bible at all. Where differences arise is in regard to conclusions we make about doctrines that do not come from the Bible. Some would argue that purgatory is not a Bible based doctrine and so is in a questionable category of speculation

Both the Jews in Mark 7 and the Catholic church claim they have infallible tradition.

1 John 4 says to test everything.

Mark 7 condemns the idea that later tradition can arise , and conflict with Bible teaching, and still be trusted.

thankfully we don't have disputes about the 27 books of the NT written in the first century as being included in the NT text.

Neither Macc 12 nor 1 Cor 3 say anything about some one being burned or tormented after they die nor do either of those texts say that someone can be benefited by something we do in this life to help them while they are dead (which is the whole point of indulgences for those in purgatory)

God is just even in a Bible scenario where no purgatory exists.
When a born again saved person dies they already "have peace with God" even before they die according to Rom 5:1-2

1 Cor 3 does not say anything about someone being burned by fire either before or after they die.

It is absent from scripture , but as you note some people suggest or at least imply that it exists in the doctrines that they hold to.

explicitly stated in some traditions. Not at all stated in the Bible

Click to expand...

Purgatory is not “absent from Scripture”; what is absent is the later medieval imagery, not the doctrine itself. Scripture teaches both that nothing unclean will enter heaven (Rev 21:27) and that some of the saved undergo a purifying divine judgment distinct from damnation: “the person will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). This is exactly how the Fathers understood it—Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and Gregory the Great all explicitly teach post‑mortem purification—and the Church dogmatically affirms this in the Councils of Florence and Trent. Likewise, 2 Macc 12:44–46 presupposes that the dead can benefit from the prayers and sacrifices of the living, which is why the earliest Christian liturgies (e.g., Apostolic Tradition 21; inscriptions in the catacombs) universally include prayers for the departed. These are not “later traditions” condemned by Mark 7; they are apostolic practices, received and preserved by the Church that Christ commanded to “hold fast to the traditions… whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15).

Your appeal to Mark 7 and 1 John 4 misfires because neither text teaches sola scriptura. Mark 7 condemns human traditions that contradict God’s command, not the apostolic Tradition that produced the New Testament canon itself—whose contents are nowhere listed in Scripture and were defined by the Church (Rome 382; Hippo 393; Carthage 397; Trent). His claim that 1 Cor 3 “does not speak of post‑mortem purification” contradicts the unanimous patristic interpretation and the teaching of Trent (Decree on Purgatory), which cites this very passage. And his assertion that “peace with God” (Rom 5:1) eliminates the need for purification confuses justification with sanctification; Catholic dogma holds that the justified may still need purification from the temporal effects of sin (CCC 1472–1473). Thus the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is not an extrabiblical speculation but the coherent synthesis of Scripture, apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s magisterial authority.

RileyG said:

Not to mention, St. Paul even prayed for a deceased Christian in one of his epistles (Philemon).

Click to expand...

The only verse in Philemon where Paul mentions praying for somebody is:

(Phm 1:4) I thank my God, making mention of you always in my prayers,

Who does he mean by "you" in that verse? Well, the previous few verses tell us:

(Phm 1:1) Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer,
(Phm 1:2) to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:
(Phm 1:3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So it was Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and other members of the church that met in Philemon's house. Which of those are you saying was deceased?

BobRyan said:

Both the Jews in Mark 7 and the Catholic church claim they have infallible tradition.

1 John 4 says to test everything.

Mark 7 condemns the idea that later tradition can arise , and conflict with Bible teaching, and still be trusted.

Click to expand...

Mark 7 explicitly refers to the Pharisaical tradition.

In contrast, the idea of Apostolic Tradition is on sound Scriptural footing, see 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and we are told to separate ourselves from those who do not follow Apostolic Tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:37, which parallels Galatians 1:8-9.

It should also be noted that the idea of Apostolic Tradition was not challenged by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer or Wesley - Sola Scriptura as originally defined does not exclude tradition, and indeed, several essential aspects of Christian praxis are contained in tradition, for example, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which is the main instrument for identifying normative Christianity. Any attempt to discredit Apostolic Tradition as a concept is problematic since the Creed itself, that vital document which separates Christians from modern day followers of Arianism such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other non-Trinitarian cults, is extremely problematic (indeed the word Trinity itself has been received through Holy Tradition; it reflected Apostolic teaching and was adopted by their successors in Apostolic succession). There are many other examples, for instance, we can thank God’s providence in guiding the Tradition of His Church for the fact that our Bibles no longer contain spurious books like Laodiceans or 1 Barnabas or omit important books such as the Apocalypse.

The attempt to use Mark 7:13 (along with an out of context quote from 2 Peter) to invalidate 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 37 is eisegesis per se since it ignores the context of the verse its quoting (the praxis of the Scribes and Pharisees, which was a manmade tradition) and ignores other Scripture which in this case literally contradicts it, in order to take proliferate the Adventist vs. Catholic false dichotomy which effectively sidelines or ignores all other groups. Even if one disagrees with Roman Catholic tradition in part, if one accepts 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians as canonical, they make it clear that such a thing as God-given tradition exists and can exist apart from Scripture, something which is confirmed by the existence of the Creed and certain other things, for example, the versification of Scripture, and conventions pertaining to common translations (the use of the word “Apostle” rather than translating this to “Legate” or “Representative” or replacing “Disciple” with “Follower” for example, or of rendering the name of St. Peter as such and not as St. Cephas).

Now, we Orthodox do not believe in purgatory, but all of our liturgical texts indicate prayer for the dead, there is Scriptural justification for it in books we regard as protocanonical, that Roman Catholics regard as deuterocanonical, and also a great many Protestants including most Anglicans and indeed CS Lewis also pray for the dead, and it is proper to do so. Indeed, when I say “Memory eternal” or my Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican friends say “Requiescat In Pace,” that is literally prayer for the dead. It is an Apostolic practice.

David Lamb said:

The only verse in Philemon where Paul mentions praying for somebody is:

(Phm 1:4) I thank my God, making mention of you always in my prayers,

Who does he mean by "you" in that verse? Well, the previous few verses tell us:

(Phm 1:1) Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer,
(Phm 1:2) to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:
(Phm 1:3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So it was Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and other members of the church that met in Philemon's house. Which of those are you saying was deceased?

Click to expand...

In 2 Timothy 1:18 St. Paul prays for St. Onesiphorus who had reposed (and indeed the text of 2 Timothy 1:16-1:17 makes it clear that St. Onesiphorus is at rest in Christ.

And why shouldn’t St. Paul have prayed for St. Onesiphorus? There is no scriptural prohibition on offering such prayers, and there is an example in 2 Maccabees, which, even if one does not accept it as Scripture, or accepts it as “edifying but not for the establishment of any doctrine”*, we can regard 2 Maccabees as evidence of Jewish practices not prohibited by Scripture (indeed Jews continue to pray for the dead and since this is documented in 2 Maccabees it cannot be regarded as part of the corrupt tradition referred to by our Lord in Mark 7:13, for no commandment is violated by that practice.

And since i reject the “Regulatory Principle” as a Calvinist innovation on the basis of a complete lack of any mention of requiring a Scriptural example for all aspects of the faith in the Patristic corpus or in Scripture itself, and on the basis of Philippians 4:8, it seems that prayer for the dead should be accepted on this basis. It does not require a belief in the existence of purgatory, as it constitutes appeals to the mercy of Christ who is both our Judge and Advocate, and whose mercy is unbounded, for God is love, as we are told in Scripture, to quote the Cappadocians St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian, a boundless sea of being, the fullness of all perfections and virtues to their highest form and ultimate extent.

I find it greatly distressing that so many Christians seem to take offense to when I pray, how I pray, and what I pray for, despite the fact that I am a Nicene Christian and the praxis of the Orthodox Church does not violate any Scriptural injunctions (even the Sabbath commandment, for we worship on every Sabbath throughout the year, in addition to worshipping on the Lord’s Day, which is nowhere prohibited, neither is prayer for the dead prohibited).

*In the case of Anglicans who still use the 39 Articles of Religion (and Anglicans do mostly pray for the dead, with most recent versions of the Book of Common Prayer containing such prayers; the 1662 version doesn’t, but the 1662 version also has such unpleasantness as the Commination service consisting of actual cursing of sinners, which despite the preface to the service is, as far as I can tell from my research, unprecedented, and also the horrific Office of the Visitation of the Sick which presupposes the person who is ill is being punished by God and focuses on telling them to endure their chastisement rather than praying for their healing in the manner of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Holy Unction Services (which I have seen work actual miracles, but we would never tell someone not to seek conventional medical treatment and to rely exclusively on Holy Unction, on the contrary, we venerate as saints Unmercenary Healers - Christian doctors who serve those in need without payment, such as Saints Cosimas and Damian and St. Luke the Evangelist), so I’m not inclined to regard it as the apex of BCP editions; indeed it is such a tragedy that the 1928 Deposited Book was blocked, and the majority in the House of Commons that obstructed it consisted of only a minority of Anglican members - who formed an alliance with other Protestants to obstruct it; as an American episodes like that remind me of why we do not have an established church even though at times I find myself frustrated by the Establishment Clause, primarily by its abuse by activist judges.