Purgatory

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

To Icthus,
[quote]The same Jews who reject Jesus as the messiah? They are in error - why should we trust anything from Jews after Christ's birth?[/quote]
If you believe this, why can't you accept Maccabees?

[Hananiah]

[quote]I will only give two typical illustrations from the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 25, verses 1-3, Moses says that, if there is a dispute between men and they go to court to have their case decided, the judge is obliged to “justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” Justice requires that the innocent be justified and the guilty condemned. Now it is certainly true that, in the act of pronouncing the court’s judgment, the guilt or innocence, the righteousness or the lack thereof of the one being judged, is a paramount concern. However, so far as the meaning and the significance of the term, “to justify,” is concerned, it does not mean to make the one justified just. It means to declare him so, to declare him to be in the right, to be without guilt.

The other example is in Proverbs 17:15, where we read, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Here again the idea cannot be that the judge, when justifying the wicked or condemning the righteous, makes the wicked righteous or makes the righteous wicked. It is the verdict of the judge, the declaration pronounced in the court of law, that is at issue. Almost all the instances of the verb “to justify” in the Old Testament have this sense or meaning, namely, that a judicial declaration has been made regarding the guilt or innocence of someone.[/quote]
A few comments on this.

1. There are plenty of non-forensic uses of the term "justify" in the OT. The word has a broad semantic range.

2. As God's word is creative (Genesis 1), if he ever were to declare something to be so, it woud immediately be ontologically so. Thus it is no surprise that God's declaration of justification always makes one righteous, whereas a human declaration of justification might only aquit one of guilt before a court.

3. Greek verbs with the suffix [i]ow[/i] normally mean to make what the root indicates, (e.g. [i]dhlow, phanerow, tuphow[/i]).

Romans 4:4-25

I dealt with the meaning of the word [i]logiomai[/i] on another thread.

[quote]Scripture uses the language of 'covering' of sin - not of making a person inwardly righteous so they can trust in their own righteousness, but of crediting an alien righteousness - Christ's - to their account.[/quote]
Scripture uses ontological language (blotted out, etc.) interchangably with language like "covering."

[quote]No, saying that a sin will not be forgiven either in this age or the age to come implies no such thing, as said above. It simply means that in this age, the sin will not be forgiven, nor will it be forgiven in the next - not implying that some sins can be forgiven in the next.[/quote]
You're sticking your head in the ground. If no sins are ever forgiven in the age to come, it would be superfluous to say that a certain sin will not be forgiven in the age to come.

[quote]Besides, you are equivocating the word 'age' with the concept of a 'lifetime'. You would like Jesus to say "It will not be forgiven, either in this lifetime or the life to come" But that is not what the text says! Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary has this to say about it:[/quote]
You really shouldn't give too much credence to those who put 2,000 year parenthesis into prophecies about weeks.

[quote]But one can just as easily [i]see[/i] one's brother repudiate the Faith, as well! If he, for instance, forsakes the Assembly and curses God, then he is commiting, in all his actions, the sin of apostasy![/quote]
Alright, you have proven that apostasy is one of the sins unto death. Salvation can be lost through apostasy.

[quote]Yes, that's true! But Christians - those who have been taken from darkness into light and credited with Christ's righteousness - don't do those things! If they do, their conversion was false.[/quote]
Ok, so Protestants read this passage descriptively, not proscriptively. That's fine and dandy. There's nothing in the context of this particular passage which can refute the Protestant reading. However, there are several other similar passages which can only be read proscriptively (Matt 16:27, Rom 2:6, Ap 22:12).

Edited June 18, 2004 by Hananiah

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Previously' date=' I']I will only give two typical illustrations from the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 25, verses 1-3, Moses says that, if there is a dispute between men and they go to court to have their case decided, the judge is obliged to “justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” Justice requires that the innocent be justified and the guilty condemned. Now it is certainly true that, in the act of pronouncing the court’s judgment, the guilt or innocence, the righteousness or the lack thereof of the one being judged, is a paramount concern. However, so far as the meaning and the significance of the term, “to justify,” is concerned, it does not mean to make the one justified just. It means to declare him so, to declare him to be in the right, to be without guilt.

The other example is in Proverbs 17:15, where we read, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Here again the idea cannot be that the judge, when justifying the wicked or condemning the righteous, makes the wicked righteous or makes the righteous wicked. It is the verdict of the judge, the declaration pronounced in the court of law, that is at issue. Almost all the instances of the verb “to justify” in the Old Testament have this sense or meaning, namely, that a judicial declaration has been made regarding the guilt or innocence of someone.[/quote] [quote]A few comments on this.

1. There are plenty of non-forensic uses of the term "justify" in the OT. The word has a broad semantic range.

2. As God's word is creative (Genesis 1), if he ever were to declare something to be so, it woud immediately be ontologically so. Thus it is no surprise that God's declaration of justification always makes one righteous, whereas a human declaration of justification might only aquit one of guilt before a court.

3. Greek verbs with the suffix ow normally mean to make what the root indicates, (e.g. dhlow, phanerow, tuphow).[/quote]

Then you don't deny that there is a forensic aspect of justification? Why is what comes after not considered 'sanctification' rather than justification?

[Hananiah]

Justification, in Catholic theology, includes God's declaration of aquital along with the transformation of the interior man. The distinction between Catholic and Protestant theology on this point is that, in Catholic theology, God's declaration can never contradict ontological reality, whereas in Protestant theology it can.

Sanctification refers solely to the transformation.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 17 2004, 08:20 PM'] Justification, in Catholic theology, includes God's declaration of aquital along with the transformation of the interior man.  The distinction between Catholic and Protestant theology on this point is that, in Catholic theology, God's declaration can never contradict ontological reality, whereas in Protestant theology it can.

Sanctification refers solely to the transformation. [/quote]
see, this is the thing...if I didn't have an expanded vocabulary, and you tried telling me ^ that, if I were Catholic, I'd get pretty pissed too.

thats the thing, really, if you're going to explain something, use terms you'd use for a lay person...I mean a REALLY REALLY lay person.

this is why I've seen as many non/anticatholic Catholics as I have...and OVER Complication of the Gospel of Christ that lies in all the documents, decrees and doctrines that is the Holy Ocean of Paperwork the Catholic Church lives in.

[color=red]Edited by Kilroy the Ninja: Please be respectful of the Phatmass phamily.[/color]

God bless.

Edited June 18, 2004 by Kilroy the Ninja

[Archangel Raphael]

Oh man...reading this at 3:30 in the morning ain't the best of ideas lol All this talk about Paradice and stuff though got me interested. I've done a study on the different levels of hell, pretty interesting stuff. I'm not entirely sure about the Purgatory thing, that's still something I've always been asking the Lord about. But I can't really say I am 100% it doesn't exist.

Oh and ya Paradice was a part of hell before Christ came. Infact if you read about the rich man and Lazarus (I can barely keep my eyes open so I'll let you all look it up instead), it didn't say the rich man looked up and saw Lazarus, but that there was a divide between him and Lazarus. In other words, he saw ACROSS the gap and to Lazarus, which means Paradice had to be across the way from where the rich man was. Again go read the scripture yourself I'm so tired I can't remember it entirely. But after Christ came there was no need for it, it's gone, it became another area for Sheol (the place where the tormented souls go). Then Christ established a Paradice in heaven, its where our spirits go to when we die, its like our section of heaven sortaspeak.

I won't go into them all, but from my own study I've found there are five (well, four now) levels of hell.

1. Sheol
2. Paradice (which is now part of Sheol)
3. The Pit (Dwelling place of demons)
4. Tartaros (Prison of the angels that slept with the women in Genesis)
5. Lake of Fire (where Satan and all the damned are yet to go in)

And all those I discovered from reading the scripture and doing alot of research in Hebrew and Greek text lol. Sorry for going off topic, just wanted to add in some info of my own. Though if anyone else is interested I may come back and share some of the information I gathered that I base these off of.

[crusader1234]

I like Dante's version of hell... complete with Popes. Don't get me wrong, I dont dislike any Popes in paritcular since I dont know enogh about them all yet, but I'm sure at least one didnt make it to Purgatory... unless theres some sort of Heaven clause...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 18 2004, 02:47 AM'] I like Dante's version of hell... complete with Popes. Don't get me wrong, I dont dislike any Popes in paritcular since I dont know enogh about them all yet, but I'm sure at least one didnt make it to Purgatory... unless theres some sort of Heaven clause... [/quote]
The contrapassos are excellent and [i]Purgatorio[/i] gives a great example of what Purgatory could be like.

[crusader1234]

If anybody here wants a clear metaphor... read Pilgrims Progress. It is neat.

[ironmonk]

If anyone denies that Purgatory is real, then they are not Catholic.

A Catholic is someone of the One Faith, established by Christ.

We all need to change for Christ and avoid foolish pride.

Christ believes in Purgatory. The bible shows Purgatory.

The Catholic Church did nothing more then give something that was taught in Old Testament Scripture a name.

If the Church gave a name to St. Matt 18:16 of "Shanolik", then that would mean "Shanolik" was true and existed.

If I called St. Matt 18:16 "Shanolik" - does that make "Shanolik" a false teaching... No, of course not.

All Christians believed in Purgatory until after 1517 AD.

[b]The Acts of Paul and Thecla[/b]

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).


[b]Abercius[/b]


"The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).


[b]The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity[/b]


"[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and [I] knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).


[b]Tertullian[/b]


"[T]hat allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25–26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge . . . and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?" (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).

"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).


[b]Cyprian of Carthage[/b]


"The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).


[b]Lactantius[/b]


"But also, when God will judge the just, it is likewise in fire that he will try them. At that time, they whose sins are uppermost, either because of their gravity or their number, will be drawn together by the fire and will be burned. Those, however, who have been imbued with full justice and maturity of virtue, will not feel that fire; for they have something of God in them which will repel and turn back the strength of the flame" (Divine Institutes 7:21:6 [A.D. 307]).


[b]Cyril of Jerusalem[/b]


"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).


[b]Gregory of Nyssa[/b]


"If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).


[b]John Chrysostom[/b]


"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

"Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf" (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).


[b]Augustine[/b]


"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

"But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Archangel Raphael]

Hey everyone, I ask this in all humble curiousity so please don't take this the wrong way. It's just something I have to ask, and this can be related to some other beliefs of the Catholics (not all, cause some I believe are very assential, just talking about a few things like praying to saints for example). Anyway here goes:

All this talk about Purgatory and all, that's fine but heres what gets me. How exactly is that assential for someone living their life for Christ here on earth? I mean there is alot in the doctrine of the Catholics and to not believe in one thing such as Purgatory, totally takes away your right to be Catholic? To further clarify my question, how does Purgatory determine if you get to heaven or not? It's sorta like saying, "You have to believe every single detail of our doctrine and believe everything everyone here does." I know though we are to always remain in repentance and confession of our sins, daily searching our hearts and in prayer.

I don't wanna start a heated debate or anything, this is just what's on my heart and wanted to see what some of your views on it are.

God bless

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Purgatory exists, and there are souls there. I see it as essential to us Church Militant because it is our duty to pray for the souls who are currently in Purgatory.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 18 2004, 02:47 AM'] I like Dante's version of hell... complete with Popes. Don't get me wrong, I dont dislike any Popes in paritcular since I dont know enogh about them all yet, but I'm sure at least one didnt make it to Purgatory... unless theres some sort of Heaven clause... [/quote]
Stephen VI dug up his predecessor's corpse and put him on trial.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Archangel Raphael' date='Jun 18 2004, 12:09 PM'] Hey everyone, I ask this in all humble curiousity so please don't take this the wrong way.  It's just something I have to ask, and this can be related to some other beliefs of the Catholics (not all, cause some I believe are very assential, just talking about a few things like praying to saints for example).  Anyway here goes:

All this talk about Purgatory and all, that's fine but heres what gets me. How exactly is that assential for someone living their life for Christ here on earth? I mean there is alot in the doctrine of the Catholics and to not believe in one thing such as Purgatory, totally takes away your right to be Catholic?  To further clarify my question, how does Purgatory determine if you get to heaven or not?  It's sorta like saying, "You have to believe every single detail of our doctrine and believe everything everyone here does." I know though we are to always remain in repentance and confession of our sins, daily searching our hearts and in prayer. 

I don't wanna start a heated debate or anything, this is just what's on my heart and wanted to see what some of your views on it are.

God bless [/quote]
To be Catholic, is to be of the One Faith established by Christ.

If someone refuses to believe something the Church teaches, then how can they be Catholic? If they refuse a teaching of the Church left by Christ, they are not Catholic, but heretic or schismatic.

Christ was pretty clear about those who refuse to listen to the Church that He gave us. The Church cannot be wrong about anything dealing with faith and morals.

[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"[color=red]He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me[/color]"

[b]St Matt 18:17[/b] (Jesus said) [color=red]If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.[/color]


Catholicism is not a buffet to choose what we want to believe. Catholicism is Truth. There can be only one Truth... Truth does not contradict Truth.

We as Catholics are to question everything, but when we question, we must seek an answer. The questions we ask are not to be solved by our own reasoning. The questions asked must be answered by real Catholic sources.

[b]Proverbs 16:25 [/b]Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!


Does that help explain my points any better?

God Bless, Love in Christ,
ironmonk

Edited June 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[Archangel Raphael]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jun 19 2004, 07:49 PM']If someone refuses to believe something the Church teaches, then how can they be Catholic? If they refuse a teaching of the Church left by Christ, they are not Catholic, but heretic or schismatic.

[/quote]
Ooooo I'm a heretic Ok sorry sarcasim gets the best of me sometimes *Smacks hand* Bad Justy bad..


[quote]The Church cannot be wrong about anything dealing with faith and morals.[/quote]

LOL

Anyhow, thanks for the info!

Edited June 20, 2004 by Archangel Raphael