Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[Xeno.of.athens]

I see. I was thinking it was each individual getting prayers from x number of family and friends.

Catholic monks and nuns, priests, and bishops, and the faithful who fill the churches pray for the souls in purgatory, it is part of the Church's prayer in the Divine Office.

 

[trophy33]

Catholic monks and nuns, priests, and bishops, and the faithful who fill the churches pray for the souls in purgatory, it is part of the Church's prayer in the Divine Office.

When and where is the doctrine of purgatory first mentioned?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When and where is the doctrine of purgatory first mentioned?

In writing? I am sure you can find that with a search of the web.

In practise? It is an Old Testament practise that Christians retained.

 

[trophy33]

In writing? I am sure you can find that with a search of the web.

In practise? It is an Old Testament practise that Christians retained.

What practice? Praying for dead? I am asking specifically about purgatory. Praying for dead does not constitute purgatory.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh wow what a great argument. There is contradictory interpretations about pedobaptism, eschatology, salvatiom etc...so we must reject them all right?

No. There are contradictory interpretations so the Bible isn't a great way of figuring out which interpretations are correct. Pedobaptism either is or isn't correct. You guys argue on and on about it, all claiming the Bible as your proof either for it or against it.

If you don't see the sufficiency of the scripture, then I pity you. May God show you that the scripture alone is sufficient

Clearly it isn't sufficient or you guys that say it is sufficient would agree what it means. You don't agree. Scripture isn't sufficient.

What else? Salvation can be lost? Grace is not enough and we must add deeds?

What does Jesus say about it? On that He is pretty clear. If you love me, keep my commandments (Jn 14:15.) And there again Sola Scriptura advocates disagree about whether salvation can be lost. The method doesn't work. It clearly doesn't work. It never worked. It is not the Bible even.

 

[trophy33]

see 2 Timothy 1:18

This is quite obviously just a good-willed wish. Not a prayer.

Also, how do we know Paul was talking about a dead person?

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

A number of NT books that Protestants keep in their version of the Bible do not contain exact quotes from the OT, why have you kept those books?

As I said earlier, Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law - that's all the 66 OT books.

Furthermore, all but 4 books of OT are quoted in NT. The 4 are Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. But even these 4 are alluded to. But not one book of Apocrypha is refernced. One would think at least one would.

No true prophet arose after Malachi, until John the Baptist. God was silent for 400 years, until He spoke through His Son.

 

[Valletta]

Plenty of books of the OT are not taught from. For example The Song of Songs, Esther, many of Psalms...


This rule also does not apply. Enoch is quoted, The Assumption of Moses is alluded to in the same way as you propose the 2 Macc is and still, they are not in the canon.

Canonization does not have any clear and cut rules. Similarly to inspiration. Its a mixture of various influences, habits/traditions, reasons.

I never said there were rules, I was refuting the supposed arguments made for dropping books from the Bible. I asked the question "A number of NT books that Protestants keep in their version of the Bible do not contain exact quotes from the OT, why have you kept those books?" That question was intended to make the point that there was no such rule. The Catholic Church process, inspired by the Holy Spirit, for choosing the books of the Bible was prayerful and deliberative and actually spanned centuries. Over a thousand years later, so far away from the time of Jesus and the Apostles, Protestants came up with a new version of the Bible although as part of their Protestant tradition they used the same order of books used by the Catholic Church since the 300s. I hope you understand the Catholic perspective that our Bible has not changed since the 300s and nothing should be added to or subtracted from the Bible. As to this discussion about purgatory, realize that the seven books were considered by Protestants to be of enough historical value to include within the bindings of the KJV into the 1800s.

 

[trophy33]

But not one book of Apocrypha is refernced. One would think at least one would.

Enoch is directly quoted, The Assumption of Moses is quite obviously alluded to.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What practice? Praying for dead? I am asking specifically about purgatory. Praying for dead does not constitute purgatory.

Sir, why pray for the dead if they are already in the blessed state in God's presence having received the reward of their faith and good deeds? One prays for the dead in the confidence that by means of our prayers they will receive the things we pray for from God's gracious hand. So we pray for the dead as the scriptures teach us to do because we are persuaded that those prayers matter and achieve their intended good in the lives of those for whom we say the prayers.

---

The Catholic Church teaches that, besides a place of eternal torments for the wicked and of everlasting rest for the righteous, there exists in the next life a middle state of temporary punishment, allotted for those who have died in venial sin, or who have not satisfied the justice of God for sins already forgiven. She also teaches us that, although the souls consigned to this intermediate state, commonly called purgatory, cannot help themselves, they may be aided by the suffrages of the faithful on earth. The existence of purgatory naturally implies the correlative dogma—the utility of praying for the dead—for the souls consigned to this middle state have not reached the term of their journey. They are still exiles from heaven and fit subjects for Divine clemency.

The doctrine of an intermediate state is thus succinctly asserted by the Council of Trent: “There is a Purgatory, and souls there detained, are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar.

It is to be noted that the Council studiously abstains from specifying the nature of the expiating sufferings endured therein.

Is it not strange that this cherished doctrine should also be called in question by the levelling innovators of the sixteenth century, when we consider that it is clearly taught in the Old Testament; that it is, at least, insinuated in the New Testament; that it is unanimously proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church; that it is embodied in all the ancient liturgies of the Oriental and the Western church, and that it is a doctrine alike consonant with our reason and eminently consoling to the human heart?

First—It is a doctrine plainly contained in the Old Testament and piously practiced by the Hebrew people. At the close of an engagement which Judas Maccabeus had with the enemy he ordered prayers and sacrifices to be offered up for his slain comrades. “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. 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.... It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”(2Macc. 12:43-46.)

These words are so forcible that no comment of mine could render them clearer. The passage proved a great stumbling-block to the Reformers. Finding that they could not by any evasion weaken the force of the text, they impiously threw overboard the Books of Maccabees, like a man who assassinates a hostile witness, or like the Jews who sought to kill Lazarus, lest his resurrection should be a testimony in Favor of Christ, and pretended that the two books of Maccabees were apocryphal. And yet they have precisely the same authority as the Gospel of St. Matthew or any other portion of the Bible, for the canonicity of the Holy Scriptures rests solely on the authority of the Catholic Church, which proclaimed them inspired.

But even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Books of Maccabees were not entitled to be ranked among the canonical Books of Holy Scripture, no one, at least, has ever denied that they are truthful historical monuments, and as such that they serve to demonstrate that it was a prevailing practice among the Hebrew people, as it is with us, to offer up prayers and sacrifices for the dead.

 

[trophy33]

I never said there were rules, I was refuting the supposed arguments made for dropping books from the Bible. I asked the question "A number of NT books that Protestants keep in their version of the Bible do not contain exact quotes from the OT, why have you kept those books?" That question was intended to make the point that there was no such rule. The Catholic Church process, inspired by the Holy Spirit, for choosing the books of the Bible was prayerful and deliberative and actually spanned centuries. Over a thousand years later, so far away from the time of Jesus and the Apostles, Protestants came up with a new version of the Bible although as part of their Protestant tradition they used the same order of books used by the Catholic Church since the 300s. I hope you understand the Catholic perspective that our Bible has not changed since the 300s and nothing should be added to or subtracted from the Bible. As to this discussion about purgatory, realize that the seven books were considered by Protestants to be of enough historical value to include within the bindings of the KJV into the 1800s.

OK, I though that "The OT books were chosen because those are the books the Apostles taught from." is your position.

 

[Valletta]

As I said earlier, Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law - that's all the 66 OT books.

Furthermore, all but 4 books of OT are quoted in NT. The 4 are Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. But even these 4 are alluded to. But not one book of Apocrypha is refernced. One would think at least one would.

No true prophet arose after Malachi, until John the Baptist. God was silent for 400 years, until He spoke through His Son.

Incorrect. The story of those who were tortured and stood fast for their belief in a better resurrection from Hebrews is ONLY found in 2 Macc.

Sirach 28:2 “Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.” Jesus Himself expanded upon this.

 

[trophy33]

Sir, why pray for the dead if they are already in the blessed state in God's presence having received the reward of their faith and good deeds?

Why do you call me sir?

The OT did not have a teaching that the dead ones are already in the blessed state. Sheol was a place of unconsciousness, dream-like state, waiting for the resurrection in the end of the age.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Enoch is directly quoted, The Assumption of Moses is quite obviously alluded to.

Because Enoch was a real person.

Or do you mean the book of Enoch?
The main reason for Jewish rejection of the book is that it is inconsistent with teachings of the Torah; the book is even heretical. For example, 1 Enoch 40:1-10 mentions the angel Phanuel (who is never mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures), giving him the power to forgive sin and grant eternal life.

 

[trophy33]

Because Enoch was a real person. Or do you mean the book of Enoch?

Yes, the book.

The main reason for Jewish rejection of the book is that it is inconsistent with teachings of the Torah; the book is even heretical. For example, 1 Enoch 40:1-10 mentions the angel Phanuel (who is never mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures), giving him the power to forgive sin and grant eternal life.

We are not talking about why Jews rejected something, we are not Jews. We are talking about why something is or is not in the Christian canon. The book of Enoch is directly quoted and the Assumption of Moses is alluded to.

Therefore, quotation or alluding to specific books does not establish their granted position in canon. In the same time, there are books in the canon that are not quoted or alluded to.

It seems to me that the basics of the Christian canon are simply based on what was a part of Septuagint. The Septuagint did not have one version, but it seems that its core strongly correlates with Christian canon.

One of the reason for canonization was a popular use among Christians worldwide. And Septuagint was popular.

 

[ozso]

They too are saved before they even get there and eventually get to heaven. If you are concerned about these people you could pray for them. It's something that we have been doing for almost 2000 years, and the Jews before that have been doing for a long time. It's not hard. It's like any other intercessory prayer.

I totally misunderstood how the system works because It's something I never really looked into. But now that it's been explained to me I see the question I asked was completely irrelevant.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

The book of Enoch is directly quoted and the Assumption of Moses is alluded to.

Maybe it was a well known fact. Why does the book then contain a heresy? If it contains a heresy, it is not from God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why do you call me sir?

The OT did not have a teaching that the dead ones are already in the blessed state. Sheol was a place of unconsciousness, dream-like state, waiting for the resurrection in the end of the age.

I called you sir because your avatar shows a beard, hence implying that you are a male person.

Whatever people today may think that old testament people believed the truth is that what they wrote as inspired scripture reflects a deeper understanding of the intermediate state and the final state of the faithful and the faithless than modern scholars credit them with.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

There are contradictory interpretations so the Bible isn't a great way of figuring out which interpretations are correct.

Just because there are many interprations, does not mean the Bible is not true. It's not God's fault people do not interpret the Bible correctly.

Scripture isn't sufficient.

So Word of God is not sufficient to you? You reject the Word of God, you reject God.

And there again Sola Scriptura advocates disagree about whether salvation can be lost.

Salvation cannot be lost. If anyone says it can, I have one message for you. How dare you. Hoy dare you to say to the Father that the perfect gift of His Son was not enough. God gave everything for us sinners on the cross, He gave Himself. By saying salvation can be lost, one is saying what God has done is not enough. There is no debate about this.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When our Savior, the Founder of the New Law, appeared on earth, He came to lop off those excrescences which had grown on the body of the Jewish ecclesiastical code, and to purify the Jewish Church from those human traditions which, in the course of time, became like tares mixed with the wheat of sound doctrine. For instance, He condemns the Pharisees for prohibiting the performance of works of charity on the Sabbath day, and in the twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew He cites against them a long catalogue of innovations in doctrine and discipline.

But did our Lord, at any time, reprove the Jews for their belief in a middle state, or for praying for the dead, a practice which, to His knowledge, prevailed among the people? Never. On the contrary, more than once both He and the Apostle of the Gentiles insinuate the doctrine of purgatory.

Our Savior says: “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him. But he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.”(Matt 12:32) When our Savior declares that a sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven in the next life, He evidently leaves us to infer that there are some sins which will be pardoned in the life to come. Now in the next life, sins cannot be forgiven in heaven, for, nothing defiled can enter there; nor can they be forgiven in hell, for, out of hell there is no redemption. They must, therefore, be pardoned in the intermediate state of Purgatory.

St. Paul tells us that “every man's work shall be manifest” on the Lord's day. “The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide,” that is, if his works are holy, “he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn,” that is, if his works are faulty and imperfect, “he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”(1Cor 3:13-15) His soul will be ultimately saved, but he shall suffer, for a temporary duration, in the purifying flames of Purgatory.

This interpretation is not mine. It is the unanimous voice of the Fathers of Christendom. And who are they that have removed the time-honoured landmarks of Christian faith by rejecting the doctrine of purgatory? They are discontented churchmen impatient of the religious yoke, men who appeared on the stage sixteen hundred years after the foundation of Christianity. Judge you, reader, whom you ought to follow. If you want to know the true import of a vital question in the Constitution, would you not follow the decision of a Story, a Jefferson, a Marshall, a Taney, jurists and statesmen, who were the recognized expounders of the Constitution? Would you not prefer their opinion to that of political demagogues, who have neither learning, nor authority, nor history to support them, but some selfish end to further? Now, the same motive which you have for rejecting the opinion of an ignorant politician and embracing that of eminent jurists, on a constitutional question, impels you to cast aside the novelties of religious innovators and to follow the unanimous sentiments of the Fathers in reference to the subject of purgatory.