Purgatory

[Swag365]

Hypothetically, Augustine showed virtually no conception of Purgatory as enunciated by the Council of Trent.

Here you go:

https://laycistercians.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/AugustineSermon17212-1.pdf

In like manner, funeral pomp and show, a costly tomb, and the erection of rich monuments, solace the living if you will; they profit not the dead. But there is no sort of doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of Holy Church and the sacrifice of salvation, and by alms, that God may deal more mercifully with them than their sins have deserved.

For the universal Church carries on the tradition which has been handed down by our fathers, that of praying for those who have departed hence in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, by commemorating them at a particular place in the sacrifice itself, and by remembering to offer it also for them. Who indeed may doubt that works of mercy, which are offered up in their memory, relieve them for whose sakes prayer is not vainly made to God? ...

A proper care should be shown for the tomb and for burial, for such care is reckoned in holy Scripture among good works. Nor is the praise bestowed upon it confined to those who buried the bodies of patriarchs and other holy people, or corpses in general, but it is extended to those who performed the same office for the body of our Lord himself. Then let men carry out these last offices for their dead and solace their human grief in so doing.

But let them, who have a spiritual as well as a natural affection for their friends who are dead according to the flesh, though not according to the spirit, show a far greater solicitude and care and zeal in offering up for them those things which help the spirits of the departed -- alms, and prayers, and supplication.

 

[Major1]

Friend, I find it amusing when you talk about there being lack of Bible support for Catholic doctrines, when the Bible does not teach that all Christian beliefs must be found in the Bible, and when you yourself hold beliefs that are not found in the Bible.

For example, you correctly believe that the book of James is the inspired word of God, but you cannot produce a verse from the Bible that teaches that James is the inspired word of God.

Thirdly, you incorrectly hold the heretical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture, and which is directly contradicted by Sacred Scripture.

So I cannot take your claims seriously friend.

Amen Brother. Amen. The best thing that you can do is quote Sacred Scripture. You err at an extremely high rate when writing anything else. Now, concerning this verse, did our Lord Jesus commit any sins?

I disagree completely with your opinion my friend and I due that with all respect to you.

Now here is a Christian 101 fact. You can accept it or ignore it but it is what the facts are. Please take the time to google this and see what you find out.

"Christian doctrine, to be Christian, MUST consist of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the four gospels found in the written Word of God as well as the teachings about Jesus Christ, which are found in the remainder of the New Testament."

Again, take the time to do the study and you will find that find that the early church devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles. This teaching centered on what Jesus said and what He did.

Acts 2:42.......
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

As for the book of James. The Catholic church is the one who included James in the canon of Scriptures. YOU have stated that the CATHOLIC CHURCH is responsible for the production of the Bible.

The only one to question James being in the Bible was the PROTESTANT MARTIN LUTHER in 1569.
He did so because your catholic church used it to falsely teach works were needed to be saved.
He later recanted his objection and there was never any thought from ANY translators to not include James in the Bible.

Your argument has no legs at all to support what you believe.

The Bible NO WHERE says that man is justified by WORKS PLUS FAITH. That my friend is what the RCC has taught you which is why reading the Bible is so important.

In every religion, and in some branches of what is called “Christianity,” man is working his way to God. Only in true, biblical Christianity is man saved as a result of grace through faith. Only when we get back to the Bible do we see that justification is by faith, apart from works.

Justification is a completed work of God, and it is instantaneous, as opposed to sanctification, which is an ongoing process of growth by which we become more Christlike (the act of “being saved,” cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Sanctification occurs after justification.

Once a person is justified, there is nothing else he needs in order to gain entrance into heaven. Since justification comes by faith in Christ, based on His work on our behalf, our own works are disqualified as a means of salvation (Romans 3:28). There exist vast religious systems with complex theologies that teach the false doctrine of justification by works. But they are teaching “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6–7).

My opinion is that you actually do not understand the Bible doctrine of GRACE. IF you did, we would not be having this lovely conversation.

As for "Sola Scriptura". Again, your comments tell us that you do not know what that means. Sola Scriptura IS NOT A BIBLE doctrine at all. It is simple a "Principle" of understanding what was said by God for the purpose of mans salvation as written in the Word of God.

The ONLY reason you reject Sola Scriptura is because the Reformers who caused the Protestant split from the RCC believed the written Word of God instead of the TRADITIONS of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church has told you that TRADITIONS of men are just as valid as what God said in His Word.

 

[Major1]

Thank you for the compliment.

Now that may be the case, but they aren't meaningless repetitions. Nor was it when our Lord said the same thing three times.

Wait a second. Mary is not the mother of God? I find that most amusing friend. Most amusing. Who is she the mother of?

Correctly understood.

You post again tells us all that you are well versed in Catholic teachings but not versed in what the Bible actually teaches.

Real historical FACTS tell us that one of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos (literally, “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God”) in reference to Mary. That council’s use of Theotokos was meant to counter the heresy of Nestorianism, which cleaved the nature and person of Christ in two: Christ’s human and divine natures were completely divergent and unconnected.

According to Nestorius, Mary gave birth to Christ but not to God; Mary was the mother of His humanity, which was totally distinct from His divinity—Jesus was two persons sharing one body, essentially. The Council of Ephesus affirmed the full deity of Christ and unity of His person by saying that Mary did indeed bear God in her womb. They said that Mary is the “mother of God” in the sense that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

We should distinguish the term Theotokos from mother of God, because there is a subtle yet important difference. The term mother of God could be taken wrongly as implying that Mary was the source or originator of God, similar to how Juno was the mother of Vulcan in Roman mythology. Of course, Christianity teaches that God is eternal and that Jesus Christ has a pre-existent, divine nature. The idea that Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the source of God or somehow predated God or is herself part of the Godhead is patently unbiblical.

Even though the term Theotokos was originally used to help explain the Incarnation, many people today use the term, or the related mother of God, to communicate something different. Through the years, many legends accumulated around the person of Mary, and she became an object of worship in her own right. About 350 years after the Council of Ephesus used the term Theotokos in reference to Mary, the Second Council of Nicaea declared, “We honor and salute and reverently venerate . . . the image of . . . our spotless Lady the all-holy mother of God.” This shows the trend within the Roman Church to move from a focus on the Incarnation of God to a veneration of the “Mother of God,” even to the point of honoring her images and praying to her as the “Queen of Heaven,” “Benefactress,” and “Mediatrix.” The necessity of such veneration is not implied by the term Theotokos, but some people wrongly infer it.
Is Mary the mother of God (Theotokos)? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Albion]

We should distinguish the term Theotokos from mother of God, because there is a subtle yet important difference. The term mother of God could be taken wrongly as implying that Mary was the source or originator of God, similar to how Juno was the mother of Vulcan in Roman mythology.

Of course, Christianity teaches that God is eternal and that Jesus Christ has a pre-existent, divine nature.

This line of thought seems to have appeared several times recently here on CF and from different posters. In short, you present the correct belief...but you don't want to use a perfectly good term because some people misinterpret the meaning.

The writers and the churches that often use this term don't misunderstand the meaning, so the question is raised: How many other Christian beliefs have to be shelved because people who haven't been properly taught might misunderstand them??

If we go down that road, the dumbest and least well educated among us will wind up defining the faith, in effect. Other religions don't do that. They instruct the people who are misled and they stand up for their faiths. Of course I'm over-dramatizing the matter by putting it that way, but you get the idea.

And in this case of the Theotokos, the correct meaning is not all that elusive, just as you explained it here.

Even though the term Theotokos was originally used to help explain the Incarnation, many people today use the term, or the related mother of God, to communicate something different.

Sure, and plenty of them also misrepresent the nature of God himself, how He communicates to us mortals, what happens after death, and so much more...and yet I don't read many posts saying that everyone else should just agree with them or strike those beliefs from our catechisms, statements of belief, or Sunday School instructional information since, after all, someone might misunderstand the meaning.

 

[Fidelibus]

I agree 100% with what you just posted.

However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth.

John 17:17.....
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Please show in this verse, or any other verse throughout Scripture where "He" says that the "written word" is the 'only truth?'

If you cannot, would you agree that you are adding to His written Word, by giving us nothing more than your fallible and non-authoritative interpretation/opinion saying that "the written Word is the ONLY truth?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here you go:

https://laycistercians.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/AugustineSermon17212-1.pdf

In like manner, funeral pomp and show, a costly tomb, and the erection of rich monuments, solace the living if you will; they profit not the dead. But there is no sort of doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of Holy Church and the sacrifice of salvation, and by alms, that God may deal more mercifully with them than their sins have deserved.

For the universal Church carries on the tradition which has been handed down by our fathers, that of praying for those who have departed hence in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, by commemorating them at a particular place in the sacrifice itself, and by remembering to offer it also for them. Who indeed may doubt that works of mercy, which are offered up in their memory, relieve them for whose sakes prayer is not vainly made to God? ...

A proper care should be shown for the tomb and for burial, for such care is reckoned in holy Scripture among good works. Nor is the praise bestowed upon it confined to those who buried the bodies of patriarchs and other holy people, or corpses in general, but it is extended to those who performed the same office for the body of our Lord himself. Then let men carry out these last offices for their dead and solace their human grief in so doing.

But let them, who have a spiritual as well as a natural affection for their friends who are dead according to the flesh, though not according to the spirit, show a far greater solicitude and care and zeal in offering up for them those things which help the spirits of the departed -- alms, and prayers, and supplication.

Thank you for helping to make my case that Augustine certainly did not have anything related to a highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent. As you know, one can pick and choose among the vast writings of the ECFs to substantiate one's position on virtually any doctrine.

As I pointed out previously Augustine developed monergism as his primary theological legacy. His monergism has been firmly renounced by the RCC in favor of synergism, but adopted in the sixteenth century by Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, who had been an Augustinian monk and, therefore, deeply steeped in Augustine's theology. The actual fact of the matter is that there was really very little, if anything, new in Reformed theology.

 

[Albion]

Please show in this verse, or any other verse throughout Scripture where "He" says that the "written word" is the 'only truth?'

That is such a defective and (IMO) deceptive argument. You might as well be asking "Who's to say that there were not two Jesus Christs preaching at the same time?" Or "who's to say that Christ did not tell every other one of his Apostles exactly what he told Peter in the Gospel of Matthew?"

That isn't in the Bible, so are we allowed to elevate these guesses that have no backing to the level of doctrine? Heaven forbid.

The fact is that unless there is a real reason for speculating on those notions, they are no more persuasive than your point about the word of God not being the ultimate authority for essential doctrine.

The idea that there might be something else from God about which he somehow failed to inform us and which has no evidence behind it is as airy and meaningless as speculating on a thousand other "what ifs" that our imaginations are capable of conjuring up.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is such a defective and (IMO) deceptive argument. You might as well be asking "Who's to say that there were not two Jesus Christs preaching at the same time? Or "who's to say that Christ did not tell every other one of his Apostles exactly what he told Peter in the Gospel of Matthew?"

That is not in the Bible, so are we allowed to elevate a guess that has no backing to the level of doctrine? Heaven forbid.

The fact is that unless there is a real reason for speculating on those notions, they are no more persuasive than your point about the word of God not being the ultimate authority for essential doctrine.

The idea that there might be something else from God about which he somehow failed to inform us and which has no evidence behind it is as airy and meaningless as speculating on a thousand other "what ifs" that our imaginations are capable of conjuring up.

You have put your finger on the precise dilemma that the RCC has placed itself in. Having established itself and its Tradition as the final arbiter of truth it is perfectly free to announce any and every sort of nonsense as being dogma essential for salvation.

 

[Swag365]

I disagree completely with your opinion my friend and I due that with all respect to you.

Now here is a Christian 101 fact. You can accept it or ignore it but it is what the facts are. Please take the time to google this and see what you find out.

"Christian doctrine, to be Christian, MUST consist of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the four gospels found in the written Word of God as well as the teachings about Jesus Christ, which are found in the remainder of the New Testament."

Again, take the time to do the study and you will find that find that the early church devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles. This teaching centered on what Jesus said and what He did.

Acts 2:42.......
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

As for the book of James. The Catholic church is the one who included James in the canon of Scriptures. YOU have stated that the CATHOLIC CHURCH is responsible for the production of the Bible.

The only one to question James being in the Bible was the PROTESTANT MARTIN LUTHER in 1569.
He did so because your catholic church used it to falsely teach works were needed to be saved.
He later recanted his objection and there was never any thought from ANY translators to not include James in the Bible.

Your argument has no legs at all to support what you believe.

The Bible NO WHERE says that man is justified by WORKS PLUS FAITH. That my friend is what the RCC has taught you which is why reading the Bible is so important.

In every religion, and in some branches of what is called “Christianity,” man is working his way to God. Only in true, biblical Christianity is man saved as a result of grace through faith. Only when we get back to the Bible do we see that justification is by faith, apart from works.

Justification is a completed work of God, and it is instantaneous, as opposed to sanctification, which is an ongoing process of growth by which we become more Christlike (the act of “being saved,” cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Sanctification occurs after justification.

Once a person is justified, there is nothing else he needs in order to gain entrance into heaven. Since justification comes by faith in Christ, based on His work on our behalf, our own works are disqualified as a means of salvation (Romans 3:28). There exist vast religious systems with complex theologies that teach the false doctrine of justification by works. But they are teaching “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6–7).

My opinion is that you actually do not understand the Bible doctrine of GRACE. IF you did, we would not be having this lovely conversation.

As for "Sola Scriptura". Again, your comments tell us that you do not know what that means. Sola Scriptura IS NOT A BIBLE doctrine at all. It is simple a "Principle" of understanding what was said by God for the purpose of mans salvation as written in the Word of God.

The ONLY reason you reject Sola Scriptura is because the Reformers who caused the Protestant split from the RCC believed the written Word of God instead of the TRADITIONS of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church has told you that TRADITIONS of men are just as valid as what God said in His Word.

Too long. Didn't read.

 

[Swag365]

They said that Mary is the “mother of God” in the sense that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

Bingo. You did well. I knew you could do it.

We should distinguish the term Theotokos from mother of God, because there is a subtle yet important difference. The term mother of God could be taken wrongly as implying that Mary was the source or originator of God, similar to how Juno was the mother of Vulcan in Roman mythology.

Nonsense. Any person other than a complete idiot can understand what the term means after a short explanation. Heck, even you understand what it means. The only reason why people object to it is because it is a term that the Catholic Church uses and they hate anything Catholic.

 

[Albion]

...and it's certainly not the case that the doctrines that are proclaimed, thanks to "Sacred Tradition," are beliefs that actually were held by the whole church throughout its history even if not specifically indicated in Scripture.

Take Papal Infallibility, for instance, which was promulgated only fairly recently along with several other decrees at a time when the sagging influence of the Papacy needed some kind of shot in the arm. It came after centuries of denials that the Popes could be infallible.

 

[Swag365]

Thank you for helping to make my case that Augustine certainly did not have anything related to a highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent. As you know, one can pick and choose among the vast writings of the ECFs to substantiate one's position on virtually any doctrine.

Nonsense. You already quoted what Trent defined with respect to purgatory:

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people. Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed. But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.​

Now, what exactly is the "highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent" that you are referring to?

The only definition of the concept is the one sentence highlighted in red above. Did you even read the portion of Trent that you posted?

And what exact part of the "highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent" is lacking in the sermon I posted?

You are blowing a lot of smoke.

 

[Swag365]

You have put your finger on the precise dilemma that the RCC has placed itself in. Having established itself and its Tradition as the final arbiter of truth it is perfectly free to announce any and every sort of nonsense as being dogma essential for salvation.

Protestants supposedly limit themselves to the Bible and most of the distinctive principles of Protestantism are nonsense.

 

[Swag365]

...and it's certainly not the case that the doctrines that are proclaimed, thanks to "Sacred Tradition," are beliefs that actually were held by the whole church throughout its history even if not specifically indicated in Scripture.

As opposed to the most important distinctive beliefs in Protestantism, which were held by nobody within the church before Luther invented them out of thin air?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nonsense. You already quoted what Trent defined with respect to purgatory:

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people. Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed. But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.​

Now, what exactly is the "highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent" that you are referring to?

The only definition of the concept is the one sentence highlighted in red above. Did you even read the portion of Trent that you posted?

And what exact part of the "highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent" is lacking in the sermon I posted?

You are blowing a lot of smoke.

Augustine certainly did not have a clue about -

The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church.

These are indulgences are they not? The entire systematic development of Purgatory as a state of being limited by time and consisting of torture and payment for one's temporal sins, which could be shortened by the application of indulgences from the Treasury of Merits is entirely alien to Augustine's thought.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thank you for helping to make my case that Augustine certainly did not have anything related to a highly developed concept of Purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent. As you know, one can pick and choose among the vast writings of the ECFs to substantiate one's position on virtually any doctrine.

Sounds like you are relying on what other people say Augustine said rather than what Augustine said. That's why I asked if you had a working knowledge of what Augustine had written or not. It's OK. I'm not trying to force you into something you don't want to do.

 

[Swag365]

Augustine certainly did not have a clue about -

The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church.

Nonsense. The sermon indicates that alms and works of mercy can benefit the dead:

In like manner, funeral pomp and show, a costly tomb, and the erection of rich monuments, solace the living if you will; they profit not the dead. But there is no sort of doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of Holy Church and the sacrifice of salvation, and by alms, that God may deal more mercifully with them than their sins have deserved.

For the universal Church carries on the tradition which has been handed down by our fathers, that of praying for those who have departed hence in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, by commemorating them at a particular place in the sacrifice itself, and by remembering to offer it also for them. Who indeed may doubt that works of mercy, which are offered up in their memory, relieve them for whose sakes prayer is not vainly made to God? ...

A proper care should be shown for the tomb and for burial, for such care is reckoned in holy Scripture among good works. Nor is the praise bestowed upon it confined to those who buried the bodies of patriarchs and other holy people, or corpses in general, but it is extended to those who performed the same office for the body of our Lord himself. Then let men carry out these last offices for their dead and solace their human grief in so doing.

But let them, who have a spiritual as well as a natural affection for their friends who are dead according to the flesh, though not according to the spirit, show a far greater solicitude and care and zeal in offering up for them those things which help the spirits of the departed -- alms, and prayers, and supplication.​

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nonsense. The sermon indicates that alms and works of mercy can benefit the dead:

In like manner, funeral pomp and show, a costly tomb, and the erection of rich monuments, solace the living if you will; they profit not the dead. But there is no sort of doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of Holy Church and the sacrifice of salvation, and by alms, that God may deal more mercifully with them than their sins have deserved.

For the universal Church carries on the tradition which has been handed down by our fathers, that of praying for those who have departed hence in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, by commemorating them at a particular place in the sacrifice itself, and by remembering to offer it also for them. Who indeed may doubt that works of mercy, which are offered up in their memory, relieve them for whose sakes prayer is not vainly made to God? ...

A proper care should be shown for the tomb and for burial, for such care is reckoned in holy Scripture among good works. Nor is the praise bestowed upon it confined to those who buried the bodies of patriarchs and other holy people, or corpses in general, but it is extended to those who performed the same office for the body of our Lord himself. Then let men carry out these last offices for their dead and solace their human grief in so doing.

But let them, who have a spiritual as well as a natural affection for their friends who are dead according to the flesh, though not according to the spirit, show a far greater solicitude and care and zeal in offering up for them those things which help the spirits of the departed -- alms, and prayers, and supplication.​

There is a vast difference between "alms and works of mercy" doing unspecified things for departed souls and, by contrast a Purgatory where souls are actively tortured for specified amounts of time to purge away temporal sins, but which time can be reduced through a highly developed system of indulgences.

My assertion still stands that the Purgatory imagined by the chaps at Trent was light years from the imaginings of Augustine of Hippo.

 

[Major1]

Bingo. You did well. I knew you could do it.

Nonsense. Any person other than a complete idiot can understand what the term means after a short explanation. Heck, even you understand what it means. The only reason why people object to it is because it is a term that the Catholic Church uses and they hate anything Catholic.

I do not agree! You are welcome to your opinion but that is all it is.

 

[Major1]

There is a vast difference between "alms and works of mercy" doing unspecified things for departed souls and, by contrast a Purgatory where souls are actively tortured for specified amounts of time to purge away temporal sins, but which time can be reduced through a highly developed system of indulgences.

My assertion still stands that the Purgatory imagined by the chaps at Trent was light years from the imaginings of Augustine of Hippo.

And you are correct!