Purgatory

[Swag365]

Purgatory where souls are actively tortured

Yeah Trent addresses that straw-man too:

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.​

And if we limited the definition of purgatory to exactly what St. Augustine wrote, you would also reject that. So your entire argument there is a bit of a smoke-screen, anyway.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeah Trent addresses that straw-man too:

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.​

And if we limited the definition of purgatory to exactly what St. Augustine wrote, you would also reject that. So your entire argument there is a bit of a smoke-screen, anyway.

Out of curiosity, what do you think those chaps at Trent thought that souls in Purgatory were doing?

 

[Swag365]

Out of curiosity, what do you think those chaps at Trent thought that souls in Purgatory were doing?

Suffering some form of temporal punishment.

Why do parents punish their children?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Suffering some form of temporal punishment.

Why do parents punish their children?

Do you think that temporal punishment was pleasant, like getting a brisk scrubbing with a soft washcloth in a shower or do you think it involved torment and torture?

 

[Swag365]

Do you think that temporal punishment was pleasant, like getting a brisk scrubbing with a soft washcloth in a shower or do you think it involved torment and torture?

Neither of those. I understand it as a "cleansing fire" or a "purifying fire" of sorts, that is "rather painful than pleasant" and necessary "to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven".

Let's take a look at the current Catechism:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. 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.
​

And let's have a look at Hebrews 12:

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12)
​

Hebrews 12, although not referring to purgatory in particular, clearly establishes the concept that God trains his people by subjecting them to a painful discipline, for their own good so that they increase in righteousness and share in his holiness.

Now for some that training is completed during this life. For many others the training is completed after death, in what the Church refers to as purgatory.

Any other questions?

 

[Valletta]

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.

Like hell and heaven, there has been and will be plenty of speculation about purgatory. We know the three exist because of God's Word, but we know little of the details.

 

[Fidelibus]

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.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your personal opinion and 'who's to say' scenarios, but it doesn't change the fact that the poster, a self proclaimed adherent of sola scriptura, quoted John 17:17; ....."Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." He then goes on to say...."However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth."

So, all I am saying is that John 17:17 doesn't say that at all! No where in this verse does it read that "He" said the written word alone is the the only truth. I know of no Scripture verse in the bible where Jesus (or John in this case) said the written word alone is the only way to truth. It is my claim that the poster is trying to make this verse say something that it does not. If I am in error, please cite the Book, Chapter or verse that shows my error.

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.

Christ made His Apostles the foundation of His Church. We see this in Ephesians 2:20, where St. Paul explains that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. Before He ascended into Heaven He established authorized persons to stand in His place as stewards of His Church until He returns. In that respect, it is not Scripture that is the foundation of the Church, but the Apostles, even those Apostles who never wrote any Scripture.

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.

Well it might be of interest to know, that the Catholic Church does not base her teachings on "What Ifs." The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible,,,,, Tradition in its written, divinely-inspired form, is not the only means by which the deposit of faith is transmitted. The Bible itself does not teach that it is the only means by which we receive Revelation. The Apostle John writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

It would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past five hundred years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Albion]

Well, you are certainly welcome to your personal opinion and 'who's to say' scenarios, but it doesn't change the fact that the poster, a self proclaimed adherent of sola scriptura, quoted John 17:17; ....."Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." He then goes on to say...."However....I would suggest the writings of God as found in the written Word of God as what He said is the only truth."

So, all I am saying is that John 17:17 doesn't say that at all! No where in this verse does it read that "He" said the written word alone is the the only truth.

Hi. I do appreciate the point you're making about you having been addressing an apparent shortcoming in his argument. However, my comment was clearly aimed at the reasoning you used when trying to counter his post.

You saw me saying, right off, that your argument seemed to me to be defective. You said "Please show in this verse, or any other verse throughout Scripture where "He" says that the "written word" is the 'only truth?'"

But there isn't any reason why he should 'prove a negative' like that!

You could have asked him to show why God's word is believable...or supremely authoritative, but instead he was asked to show that something else that was not identified and isn't even known to exist doesn't beat divine revelation!

I know of no Scripture verse in the bible where Jesus (or John in this case) said the written word alone is the only way to truth.

There are, in fact, many verses saying that God's word in Scripture is supremely authoritative.

But if you find the kind of argument in which the other person is challenged to prove that something else which isn't known is better than what God has said to mankind, you really should produce it and show that there's no doubt about it being the equal of God's word in Scripture when it comes to doctrine that's essential to our salvation.

Doing that would demolish Sola Scriptura.

 

[Swag365]

But if you find the kind of argument in which the other person is challenged to prove that something else which isn't known is better than what God has said to mankind, you really should produce it and show that there's no doubt about it being the equal of God's word in Scripture when it comes to doctrine that's essential to our salvation.

Doing that would demolish Sola Scriptura.

Friend you do not even hold Sola Scriptura yourself. Your own beliefs demolish it. You hold many things as dogma that are not found in text of Sacred Scripture. A few examples:

1) That the book of James is the inspired word of God.

2) That the baptism of infants is proper, and that this baptism of infants saves.

3) That our Lord did not merely speak metaphorically when he said "This is my body".

The three beliefs noted above are a part of Sacred Tradition and you cannot produces any verses in the Bible that teach them. You simply refuse to admit that they are Sacred Tradition, and you object to Sacred Tradition only where it differs from the specific beliefs that you hold, which is hypocritical.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Maybe you have read Augustine's Confessions, and City of God, and his Handbook, and some of his Sermons, and his Retractions, and the like and are well on your way to familiarity with the thought of Augustine. You have neither confirmed nor denied that. You are rather emphatic about knowing just what Augustine thought though.

 

[Fidelibus]

You saw me saying, right off, that your argument seemed to me to be defective. You said "Please show in this verse, or any other verse throughout Scripture where "He" says that the "written word" is the 'only truth?'"

Well, like I said before, the poster being a self proclaimed adherent of sola scriptura, Said that "He" (not sure if he was speaking of Jesus or St. John) say's that the 'written word' of God is the 'only' truth. I take that as him meaning not just only, but 'alone' as well, and I just wanted him to show as a sola scripturist where in the bible alone 'He' (Jesus or any writer of Scripture) says that the written word of God is the only truth.

But there isn't any reason why he should 'prove a negative' like that!

If there is any negativity, it's of his own doing. I am "Not" an adherent of sola scriptura.... he is, and as a sola scripturist, if he is going to to make such a claim, he needs to be prepared to back it up using the bible only!

You could have asked him to show why God's word is believable...or supremely authoritative,
but instead he was asked to show that something else that was not identified and isn't even known to exist doesn't beat divine revelation!

Again, I am not a sola scripturist, he is. That meaning the bible contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong. Does that sound about right?
I as a Catholic on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”, as expressed in the Bible itself, is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

There are, in fact, many verses saying that God's word in Scripture is supremely authoritative.

But do these verses say the bible alone contains all of the material one needs as a sole rule of faith, theology and truth, and that this material is sufficiently clear? And do any of these verses say that the "written word" of God is the 'only truth?'"

But if you find the kind of argument in which the other person is challenged to prove that something else which isn't known is better than what God has said to mankind, you really should produce it and show that there's no doubt about it being the equal of God's word in Scripture when it comes to doctrine that's essential to our salvation.

But once again, I am not an adherent to sola scriptura. Again I was asking an adherent of sola scriptura to show me where in Scripture where it says that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith and that the written word of God is the only truth! If he can do that, he shouldn't have a problem showing in the bible where Jesus taught Sola Scriptura.

Doing that would demolish Sola Scriptura.

Well, the way I see it, not being able to produce a single verse in Scripture where it says that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith, and that the written word alone of God is the only truth, along with the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past five hundred years demolishes it quite well.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Neither of those. I understand it as a "cleansing fire" or a "purifying fire" of sorts, that is "rather painful than pleasant" and necessary "to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven".

Let's take a look at the current Catechism:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. 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.
​

And let's have a look at Hebrews 12:

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12)
​

Hebrews 12, although not referring to purgatory in particular, clearly establishes the concept that God trains his people by subjecting them to a painful discipline, for their own good so that they increase in righteousness and share in his holiness.

Now for some that training is completed during this life. For many others the training is completed after death, in what the Church refers to as purgatory.

Any other questions?

Yes, and thank you for asking. Do you believe, along with traditional RCC teaching that Purgatory is a place of fire and brimstone, similar to hell, but not eternal?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Like hell and heaven, there has been and will be plenty of speculation about purgatory. We know the three exist because of God's Word, but we know little of the details.

You might think that God's Word states that hell, heaven and purgatory exist, but unless you redefine "God's Word" to be synonymous with the Tradition of the Catholic Church, you cannot find any references in the Bible (God's Word to most Christians) to Purgatory, although hell (and its Hebrew relative, sheol) and heaven (or eternal life, or the Kingdom of heaven) have lengthy passages devoted to them.

Strangely, although Jesus talked a lot about heaven and hell He never managed to allude to a place called Purgatory. In fact, the only biblical support for the notion comes from a brief passage which is taken to imply the place, from one of Paul's letters.

While you are speculating about purgatory you might as well revive speculation about the state of babies who die without baptism - the place formerly known as Limbo.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Maybe you have read Augustine's Confessions, and City of God, and his Handbook, and some of his Sermons, and his Retractions, and the like and are well on your way to familiarity with the thought of Augustine. You have neither confirmed nor denied that. You are rather emphatic about knowing just what Augustine thought though.

What we are dealing with is the ability of certain individuals to recraft one of the less-significant passages from Augustine's writings to support a doctrine which came to full fruition long after his death.

It is a pity IMO that the RCC decided to turn its back on Augustine's monergism. Had they not done so, then there is a real possibility that Mr. Luther might not have departed the fold.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What we are dealing with is the ability of certain individuals to recraft one of the less-significant passages from Augustine's writings to support a doctrine which came to full fruition long after his death.

So you ARE very well read in Augustine? Or are you just avoiding telling me that you really aren't and have read only a few excerpts in the last day?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So you ARE very well read in Augustine? Or are you just avoiding telling me that you really aren't and have read only a few excerpts in the last day?

I am actually rather surprised that you have not seen past my gross ignorance of Augustine's writings and have not posted pertinent passages which explicate his detailed understanding of Purgatory. If they are there, as well they could be, it is up to you to enlighten me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am actually rather surprised that you have not seen past my gross ignorance of Augustine's writings and have not posted pertinent passages which explicate his detailed understanding of Purgatory. If they are there, as well they could be, it is up to you to enlighten me.

So you finally admit to gross ignorance of the works of Augustine. I did not want to presume that. It was up to you to tell me that. Now that you have done so I am going to do you the favor of letting you become informed by yourself, without handing you the tidbits you seek. In that way you have the chance to discover a profound Christian author for yourself. What you discover will ‘stick’ far better than me telling you what to think. See, it’s not up to me to enlighten you but up to you to be enlightened, or not. You can do the work. If I do it for you it’s so easy to go in one ear and out the other.

A word of advice though. There are many translations of Augustine. Some of them are stodgy and some are much fresher. Spend some time finding a newer and clearer translation. I had to struggle with some older translations. You shouldn’t have to if you find a better set of translations.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So you finally admit to gross ignorance of the works of Augustine. I did not want to presume that. It was up to you to tell me that. Now that you have done so I am going to do you the favor of letting you become informed by yourself, without handing you the tidbits you seek. In that way you have the chance to discover a profound Christian author for yourself. What you discover will ‘stick’ far better than me telling you what to think. See, it’s not up to me to enlighten you but up to you to be enlightened, or not. You can do the work. If I do it for you it’s so easy to go in one ear and out the other.

A word of advice though. There are many translations of Augustine. Some of them are stodgy and some are much fresher. Spend some time finding a newer and clearer translation. I had to struggle with some older translations. You shouldn’t have to if you find a better set of translations.

As you and I both know, Augustine never held any such views of Purgatory as were later defined by the chaps at Trent. You want to make an argument from silence. I rest my case. Purgatory is an invention of the RCC alone, and is foreign to all other branches of Christianity.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As you and I both know, Augustine never held any such views of Purgatory as were later defined by the chaps at Trent. You want to make an argument from silence. I rest my case. Purgatory is an invention of the RCC alone, and is foreign to all other branches of Christianity.

You have laid your cards on the table as if you were some sort of expert on Augustine. If you can live with that I can let you live with it.

 

[Swag365]

Yes, and thank you for asking. Do you believe, along with traditional RCC teaching that Purgatory is a place of fire and brimstone, similar to hell, but not eternal?

As for its similarity to hell or lack thereof, there have been differing opinions on that throughout the history of the Church, but I have no particular opinion on it. I believe that there is (i) hell, (ii) purgatory, and (iii) heaven, and that after my death I'll find myself in one of the three states. The particulars of each I don't spend a ton of time thinking about, although perhaps I should. For now it's enough for me to know that the third option is much better than the second, and that the second option is much better than the first, so I'll have faith in the Lord and try to live my life accordingly.