DeoOmnisGloria.com

How do you know Onesiphorus was dead? How do know Paul wasn't graciously praying for someone who abandoned him?

How do you know Onesiphorus was dead? How do know Paul wasn't graciously praying for someone who abandoned him?

Jay,

First, As I understand it No Jew before Christ
when they died went directly to heaven. They were
waiting in either Sheol or in Abrahams bosom. Reference the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
The animal sacrifices done at the temple were
temporary and pointed to the Sacrifice of Christ.

When Christ paid the price the righteous dead
were released from Abraham's bosom and their
souls went to heaven.

So these practices of the Jews would be obsolete
with the ressurection of Jesus. There would be
no need to pray for the dead once Christ Conquerred death.

The last verse you quote refers to a person's
works. As you said they are saved but the works
refer to rewards IE the Parables about the Talents. Salvation is a FREE GIFT that CAN NOT be WORKED for. If you could work for it than it
no longer is a FREE Gift and becomes WAGES. However scripture talks about different rewards we will receive apart from Salvation.

Read Revelation where it speaks of the 1000 year Millenial kingdom of Jesus on earth.

Those who are a part of the first ressurection
will hold various positions in that kingdom
according to their Good Works...

Why is there a need for a holding area ? If
you are saved why would you need to wait to get
into heaven ? Does entrence hindge on GOOD works
or a changed heart and whether we receive the FREE GIFT of Salvation ?

You side stepped my questions in the other discussion area.

Can a catholic know for sure if they will go to
heaven or not? You said in that post that Paul
was not assured of heaven. Yet you infer in that
post that you have an assurance of heaven.

Please clarify and elaborate on if a Catholic
can know where they will end up. If they can
know, How ?

If NOT why not ? What will keep a Catholic out
of heaven and land them in Purgatory ?

I don't want vague answers. Give specifics.

With Protestants, they have an assurance.
You said in the other post that we must run
the race and I agree with that but you did not answer my question directly. Are you going to heaven or Not ???

Again I repeat. If you can NOT know where you
will end up for sure I submit that Living a
committed life trying to serve GOD is no better
than a Lottery or gambling on a bingo card...

Did Jesus Promise eternal Life to those who followed Him or didn't He..? It's that simple...
Why would HE make some souls jump through a hoop of Purgatory ?

Grace and Peace In Christ ..

Clem

Jay,

You have to admit that this is pretty weak evidence. It would seem to me that the first New Testament verse you quoted was like us today saying, "May God have pitty on his soul." Does that mean that we are praying for this to happen, or that we are simply stating a hope that this has or will already happened. I think that the later is a better reading.

By the way, if the apocryptha wasn't considered part of Scripture during Jesus' time by most Jews, and it currently is not recgonized by Jews as part of their scripture, why should we now consider it a part of our scripture? I believe that the Church included it in the Cannon because it was mistakenly included as part of the Greek Old Testament by a small minority of Jews in Alexandria during the time of Christ.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Clem,

You might be interesting in reading a further explanation of purgatory from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as you deem the explanations given here on this forum insufficient:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Happy reading.

Hi guys,
First, most protestant scholars will agree that Onesiphorus was dead - there is another verse in Timothy that implies the same (note how St. Paul refers to him in the past tense here). Often the argument is the one Thomas put forward, that is "this isn't really a prayer." But I would disagree. This is a formal declaration by St. Paul where he is essentially asking God to find mercy for Onesiphorus. It is a prayer for a man's soul. In addition, St. Paul is praying for the future day of judgment - he repeatedly uses "that Day" in his writings as a way of pointing towards the future judgement.

Secondarily, I note that no one mentioned the second passage, which is just as strong. St. Paul does not imply in the least that those who suffer for the dead are wrong - in fact he suggests this points to a truth.

Next, there is no question that the majority of Jews used the Septuagint as their Old Testament prior to Christ. This book included the deuterocanonical books like Maccabees. I highly recommend you read this article on the deuterocanonical books, Thomas. It dispels the common myths associated with them.

Clem, one suggestion: read the book of James.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas,

The standard Jewish Old Testament at the time of Christ was the Septuagint, which was created in 280 B.C. by 72 Jewish scribes who translated the existing Hebrew texts into Greek. This version was used by the writers of the New Testament as evidenced by their citing it over 300 times out of 350 Old Testament references in preference to other versions. The Septuagint contains the seven books considered "apocrypha" by the Protestants (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees). It is the version referred to in the Didache and quoted by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written around A.D. 96, refers to Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Judith. The seven books were also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68. More information about the Old Testament Canon can be found on the following website:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

Brandon,

I have read the explanation there and it is very
long and plotting.

No one wants to address my questions directly.

(1.)Does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from sin or doesn't it. (1A.)If I live a life dedicate to God will I get into heaven or not? Answer the
Question ..

(2.)Is Mother Theresa in heaven or in
Purgatory ?

(3.)Can a Catholic know where they will end up?
The Catholic explanation is that nothing un-holy
can enter into heaven. No sin can enter, WE
ALL AGREE ON THAT POINT.

(4.)Does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from our sin or not? (4a.)If it does why would one need an additional cleansing process before you would be allowed into heaven ? It is ILLOGICAL.

It has been said that prayers of people here on
earth can help to get loved ones or whom ever
out of purgatory and into heaven. That is why
you justify prayers for the dead.

(5.) Are prayers equal to the blood of Christ?
(5A.)Do they have some influence on God to relent and allow someone entrence into heaven?

I am asking legitimate Logical questions. I am
being sincere and not trying to be a trouble
maker. You give long answers that do not answer
the questions directly.

Just answer this one question ..

(6.)Why would someone need more than the Blood of
Jesus to cover and cleanse them from their sin ?

In essence if the blood of Jesus doesn't do the
job It is NOT FINISHED.. It ceases to be a GIFT
and Salvation is something that WE can purchase
through prayers or Good works... Which is contrary to scripture.

Can Ssomeone on this BLOG answer my questios
directly and in terms a common Non Theologian
can understand..?

HIS Grace and Peace,

Clem

Clem: stay on the subject: praying for the dead. You can have every single one of your questions answered at www.catholic.com or any of the references in the email above.

Nobody is side-stepping your questions. You keep not addressing the subject of this comment box.

Nobody yet mentioned another obvious reference to the awareness of the dead in Heaven (and the souls in Purgatory too, probably). Who exactly participated in the "more joy in Heaven and earth" when the single straying sheep was found?

Jay,

I went to the link you suggested on the duetercanonical books. It was a nice article
that proved Nothing. There was no bibliography
backing up where he got his information from.
Basically it was HIS opinion and Thesis but
He did not give any sources for his facts..
What are the authors credentials ?

I didn't go to college but I know that if you
do a paper and don't back up your work with sources you will probably get an "F" ...
He makes statements and assumptions without any
collaborating documentation to go back too...

It was a nice article though ...

In His Grace ,

Clem

Therese,

Correct me if I am wrong But isn't the practice
of praying for the dead DIRECTLY linked to
PURGATORY.

Isn't the reason for purgatory because of Souls with unrepented venial sin which keeps them out of heaven?

The core reason behind the prayers is that somehow the Blood of Christ did not cover or
pay for the sins the souls in purgatory are
there for.

Therese, I believe these are all interconnected.

Respectfully In Christ.

Clem

Clem,

I will try to answer your questions. I apologize to others for the long comment, but I think Clem as a point about this being connected to purgatory and prayers for the dead. I also apologize for not being a Scripture scholar, and not linking to any Scripture. But I hope this gives the straight answer without beating around the bush.

(1) Does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from sin or doesn't it. (1a) If I live a life dedicate to God will I get into heaven or not?

Yes! And yes, unless your last free will act is to deny God.

(2) Is Mother Theresa in heaven or in Purgatory?

Only God and the souls in heaven and purgatory know this answer with certainty. We can hope that she skipped it, or at least stayed for a very short time.

(3) Can a Catholic know where they will end up? The Catholic explanation is that nothing un-holy can enter into heaven. No sin can enter, WE ALL AGREE ON THAT POINT.

No one knows for certain. But, there are certain signposts along the journey that let you know you are heading Godward and not hellward.

(4) Does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from our sin or not? (4a) If it does why would one need an additional cleansing process before you would be allowed into heaven ? It is ILLOGICAL. It has been said that prayers of people here on earth can help to get loved ones or whom ever out of purgatory and into heaven. That is why you justify prayers for the dead.

The blood of Jesus does cleanse us from sin. The question should be rephrased as to *when* are we cleansed? You are forgiven of your sins at the moment you repent and turn back toward God, thanks be to Jesus. But the effects of sin still remain, much like scare tissue. Purgatory removes these scares and any other remaining imperfections of pride and selfishness.

(5) Are prayers equal to the blood of Christ?

I do not understand this question, but I think the answer is no.

(5a) Do they have some influence on God to relent and allow someone entrance into heaven?

God only answers yes to prayers that are in accord with His will. I suspect that by praying for someone who might be in purgatory shows to God that there is still a connection of love between the soul in purgatory with someone on earth. We are judged on love. And that, somehow may help speed up the purification process a little.

(6) Why would someone need more than the Blood of Jesus to cover and cleanse them from their sin? In essence if the blood of Jesus doesn't do the job, it is NOT FINISHED. It ceases to be a GIFT and Salvation is something that WE can purchase through prayers or Good works...Which is contrary to scripture.

There is a huge difference between salvation and sanctification. And I think this is what your set of questions is getting at.

The short definition of sanctification is being purified, made perfect, becoming a saint in heaven. The Blood of Jesus does save and does purify, but not all at one instant. Salvation is an easy decision, either you are honestly and genuinely looking toward God or not, heaven or hell. Sanctification is a process of purification. You can choose to start this purification process early through good works, prayer, fasting, etc., or you can wait till later, i.e. purgatory. (It is to your benefit to start now, because contrition merits far more benefits before death than afterwards.) Very few people are completely sanctified within their lifetime.

A good analogy on the difference between salvation and sanctification is like asking the following question about marriage: Are you more married today than the day you were married? (I guess this analogy only really works if you have been married longer than two or three years.)

I hope this helps. May God’s love, peace, and energy touch you in faith.

Clem,

Regarding your enumerated questions, I will try to answer them directly and to the best of my ability:

1) Yes. Christ's Precious Blood cleanses us from sin - "This is the Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The change in a soul whereby we are cleansed from sin and enter into a state of justice is termed "justification." The notion that justification takes place through faith alone is an error of Martin Luther and was condemned by the Council of Trent:

"If any one shall say that the wicked man is justified by faith alone, meaning that no other thing is required to co-operate for obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema" (sess. vi, Canon 9 de justificatione).

Thus faith, or a belief in God and His Revelation, is not sufficient to be justified, but it is necessary to co-operate with the graces Christ merited for us through His Passion and Death through a movement towards Him and a detestation of the sin committed. However, the first "step," if it may be called, of justification is the infusion of grace by God, as the Apostle teaches when referring to the "election of grace": "And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is not grace" (Rom. xi.6). Nothing we do can merit this initial grace but our co-operation with it is necessary for the remission of sins.

1a) Maybe - to presume your salvation is against the theological virture of hope, divinely infused into our souls at our baptism. "For we are saved by hope" (Rom. viii.24). The Council of Trent had this to say regarding the "Vain Confidence of Heretics":

"Although it is necessary to believe that sins are neither forgiven, nor ever have been forgiven, except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ's sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the forgiveness of his sins and rests on that alone, since among heretics and schismatics this vain confidence, remote from all piety, may exist, indeed in our own troubled times does exist, and is preached against the Catholic Church with vigorous opposition. But neither is this to be asserted, that they who are truly justified without any doubt whatever should decide for themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and is justified, except him who believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified, and that by this faith alone are absolution and justification effected, as if he who does not believe this is doubtful of the promises of God and the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For, just as no pious person should doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ, and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so every one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may entertain fear and apprehension as to his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."

"With fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phil. ii.12).

2) Depends. Thus far, she has only been beatified. By this, the Roman Pontiff has given permission that she may be publically venerated and it would be safe to assume that she is in Heaven. The beatification process is not infallible, however, so we cannot say with absolute certainty that she is in Heaven until she is canonized a Saint. The means of determining whether or not she is a Saint is through examination of her life, her writings, and, most importantly, the miracles attributed to her intervention.

3) A Catholic hopes; a Protestant presumes. I'm glad we agree that "there shall not enter into [Heaven] any thing defiled" (Apoc. xxi.27)

4) See #1.

4a) Nothing illogical about purgatory - God is infinite justice and requires that the temporal punishment due to sin is remitted in a soul before it enters into Heaven even after the eternal punishment has been forgiven. You seem to neglect the fact that attached to sin are two types of punishments: eternal, consisting of Heaven or Hell, and temporal, that which we experience on earth. As a result of the Fall of Man, death, ignorance, sickness, and suffering entered into the world as a means of punishing man for his transgressions. Christ's Precious Blood spilt upon the ground for our sake did not remit these punishments - they still remain as the effects of sin even as Christ has opened the gates of Heaven for us through His Holy Passion. If we do not remit the punishment due to our forgiven sins by means of good works and penance here on this earth, God's justice requires that we "pay the last farthing" before we are admitted to Heaven. If there is no necessity on our part to make up for our offenses to God, why would Our Lord say to us that "except you do penance, you shall likewise perish"? (St. Luke xiii.5)

5) No, but if you think that prayer is not necessary for salvation, you are a fool. "But in every thing, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God" (Phil. iv.6) It is through the merits of Our Lord's Passion and Death and through asking in His Name that our prayers are efficacious.

5a) Yes. "Pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much" (St. James v.16).

6) This is the issue in a nutshell - Christ's Precious Blood does not "cover us," as in Martin Luther's erroneous theory whereby the grace of God is merely a mantle to hide our sins. Our Lord's Passion and Death have given us a means of obtaining sanctifying grace, by which we live a life of holiness and are truly made sons of God and "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter i.4). I encourage you to seek more information about the Catholic teaching on grace:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

May the Holy Ghost aid you in your continued search.

Mark and Brandon,

Thank you both for your straightforward and
well articualted answers....

Grace & Peace to You both,

Clem

Clem,

I'll admit upfront that I am no expert. I am currently a nominal Baptist who is studying at a super orthodox Anglican church because I am considering being confirmed into that church.

As a Protestant my entire life (I was born and raised in a liberal Lutheran church) I too have a big problem with the idea of purgatory. But the rector of this parish has a good take on it that I am currently mulling over.

He says that purgatory is a place of cleansing but in the sense of completing the act of redemption. Redemption is not instantaneous, but a process which begins with a person's baptism into the church and ends when a person is truly repentant of their sins and is admitted to heaven.

In my mind, this is the most important point he makes. If we must repent of our sins in order to be saved then we must truly repent of them. No half measures will be accepted when it comes to a truly repentant heart. But true repentance is marked by not committing the sin again. This is a rather logical definition of repentance, isn't it?

And yet who among us is truly repentant for all of our sins? While we live we keep sinning and often that means committing the same sins over and over in a never ending cycle of repentance and recidivism. As my rector explains it, purgatory is the place where we are at last able to perfect our repentance. Once we are perfectly repentant for our sins then we may accept the full gift of grace and enter into heaven.

What I am not clear on is if it is possible to fail once one has attained purgatory or if the outcome is gauranteed for those who trust in Christ at the time of their death. I have yet to ask him about it because I really have just thought of the question! :)

The only way for me to ever accept this teaching is if the answer is yes, those who die trusting in Christ will reach heaven without a doubt.

Therefore, if you look at purgatory not as a place where one works of individual sins but as a place where one is allowed to fully contemplate their sins to the point where their hearts are ready for a perfect attitude of repentance, then the teaching is somewhat more acceptable. I think that the idea of working off your sins was an historical corruption of the right teaching which at the time of Luther was pre-dominant. He was right to object to it but he may well have been wrong to toss the whole idea out the window as if it had no merit at all. I think he could be rather reactionary and short sighted at times and this may well be the case with his total rejection of the idea of purgatory.

One last thing. Think for a moment what time must be like for God. We think in very short incriments and tend to look for instantaneous results. But God's concept of time is not ours. An instant of his time might seem like a great deal of time to us for we are impatient. If our recieving grace comes in a large chunk of our time does that neccessarily mean that it doesn't happen in an instant in God's time? If once we are baptised into the church and so receive God's promise of salvation so long as we do not reject it again by quitting the church, and if God's promises are not broken, does it really matter how long it takes for us in our linear understanding of time to receive our eternal reward after we die? For us on earth and in time,
purgatory may seem like a long additional step. But couldn't it seem more like an instant to those who are outside of time? Couldn't it seem like an instant to God?

Its just a thought. I hope it helps you to better understand the position. Of course most people here would consider my rector a heretic and so his understanding is probably not Catholic enough for them but still it can be a start anyway, right?

BTW, I forgot something.

Purgatory is rightfully considered a place of suffering but the way I understand it it would not be the kind of suffering you might feel if you were working but rather it would be the kind of suffering that comes with becoming fully aware of our sins. It would be the pain of becoming truly repentant.

Agsin, I must warn you that I may not truly understand this teaching or I may not be representing my rectors explaination. I'm just trying to help. :)

Jay,

You put a link to an author in the article
on Should we pray for the dead which I paraphrase
Debunks the Protestant claim that the Jews did
not recognize the Apocripha as holy or authorative.

I went to the site and I commented on it a few posts above this one.

Here is a link to an author who has the opposite
view of the author you linked to.

HE has a bibliography and source material for
his claims. Some of which is the Writings of
Philo of Alexandria ,Josephus Flavious and The Church father, St. Jerome.

Here is the link :

http://christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Grace & Peace ..

Clem

Jay and all,

I think that we have all touched on the real issue here. That is the doctrine of Sola Fides. If we are once and for all declared righteous by the atoning work of Christ on the Cross then there is no need for Purgatory, or prayer to the dead etc. If we need to do something in addition to Christ’s work in order to somehow merit God’s favor, then the need for Indulgences, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, and the Sacraments make total sense. Sola Fides (as well as Sola Scriptura) is the crux of what separates Catholics and Protestants. If we can resolve this issue then most other issues go away.

Back to the smaller issue at hand. How do Catholics handle the thief on the cross? The thief had lived his entire life in rebellion to God’s Word, so much so that he was being crucified for his crimes, and only at the very end of his life did he believe. Surely if there was a person who needed to go through the Purgatory purification process (“PPP”) before entering paradise with Christ, it would be him. And yet Scripture tells us that Christ declared “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43 And evidentially according to Catholic Doctrine even God Himself can’t wash a man’s sins away and declare that person pure, instantaneously and without the need of going through the PPP. How did the thief make it? Was it just a super intense blast of God’s eternal fire that very quickly burned off a lifetime of this man’s sins in half a day, and then off he goes into Heaven? Or when Christ referred to the word “today” was it one of those funky eternal versus temporal time issues that we just can’t understand? Or could it be that Christ had the power to declare this man pure and righteous, by what he was then doing on the cross, even though in reality he was not? If he could do this with this man, why not us?

Also there is the parable of the workers in Matthew 20:1-16. It is Christ’s unmerited favor that they each received a denarius at the end of the day not how long they worked. If you will notice in the parable that the workers hired in the eleventh hour were not required to work off the rest of the wage after they had been paid. If this parable lined up with Catholic Doctrine then the workers would have had to work through the night in order to make up their lost time, because one way or the other the wages must be earned. Right?

If Purgatory is truly a real place, then it represents a very key doctrine to the church. However, although Christ mentions Heaven and Hell with regularity in His ministry, He fails to mention Purgatory once. And please don’t tell me that this doctrine was just assumed by the New Testament writers. I think I would find that very hard to believe. And much like most other Catholic doctrines, the only evidence in any of the Apostles writings that they believed in this doctrine are a very few obscure verses that could be interpreted in any number of ways, and one or two verses in the Apocrypha. (If I were Catholic, I would be very nervous basing a key doctrine solely on the Apocryphal writings. There is enough evidence to cast some serious doubt about their inspiration.) I truly believe that this doctrine would have been a totally foreign concept to the Apostles, and was the invention of the later Church to make logical sense of their erroneous doctrine of salvation. In fact the whole Catholic doctrine of salvation suggests that maybe God is not as powerful as we really think He is, if He is incapable of saving us without our help. This doctrine makes Christianity into just one more “works based” religion in a world full of them. What is the difference between Catholism and Islam, except for the differing requirements placed upon us to merit salvation? We become just another Tower of Babel, where we all try to somehow strain to reach God, all the while not realizing that God has already reach down to us and done all the work for us.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas,
I don't have enough time to fully answer this right now, but I wanted to point out a couple of things quickly. I do recommend you read this article on Purgatory and the Bible. It explains some of your difficulties.

First, we believe we are saved through faith working in love. We don't believe we must "work" for our salvation in the way you understand. I need to write a full post explaining this in more detail.

Catholics believe that baptism removes all sin. There are several forms of baptism and one is the baptism of desire. This means if you truly and strongly desire baptism, but (through no fault of your own) you do not have the opportunity to receive it, you are still baptized. So I would argue the thief on the cross was "baptized by desire" on the cross and thus forgiven of all his sins. Note confession also removes sin and has the ability to purify us in a way that would send us straight to heaven.

Finally, the parable of the workers was really mean to explain why Gentiles would be equal to Jews in heaven even though the Gentiles came late to the game. However, it wouldn't apply to the way Catholics understand salvation in the way you suggestion. I will write a post on this soon.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas,

You articulated my thoughts better than I did.
You made really good points.

1.Jesus talks much about heaven and hell but NEVER mentions purgatory. Don't you think if
this was such an IMPORTANT doctrine that Jesus
or the apostles would have mentioned it CLEARLY
Just once.

2. Notice the verse in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Jay quotes as proof. Read IT. Note verse 15
"If any man's WORK is burned up, He will suffer
Loss; BUT, He himself will be SAVED,yet so as through fire. This is not the fire of Purgatory.
Where is the proof that there is fire in Purgatory? We know there is fire in hell.
The mans WORKS are burned up Yet He is still
SAVED.... Those works have to do with HEAVENLY
REWARdS - NOT SALVATION. It says Yet he is still
saved.

3. Contrary to what Jay posted It is NOT fiction
that the Jews did not consider the Apocrypha
Holy or inspires. Look at my post before yours
for PROOF. Even St. Jerome an early church father
did not think the Apocrypha was inspired or holy.

It is funny that the BLOGGERS will quote the
early church fathers when they agree with their
position BUT, Ignore or call the church father
confused or say they were wrong on the issue
they disagree with them on ...

Hey guys - either they are an accurate and approved source or they are NOT. You can't
pick and choose to suite your doctrine..

Isn't that the same thing YOU accuse Martin Luther of ??? You can not have it both ways...

Finally I also think the problem is how Catholics
and Protestants view the definitions of SIN and
GRACE. They believe that we are all born with
the stain of the sin of Adam on their souls-
(Source- the Catholic encyclopedia on line)with
the EXCEPTION of course of JESUS and MARY...

Jesus was GOD in the Flesh so of course HE was
born sinless (We all can agree with that) but I don't understand how Mary got an Exemption - Oh yeah, she was Jesus's mother so she got a pass ... So Pauls declaration in Romans should
have read All (with the exception of Mary) have
sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Paul
got it wrong ...

MARK 10:28-31 Jesus promises the disciples that
they would be rewarded for following Him in this world and the world to come and that they
would have eternal life with Him...

That promise was not just for them but for ANYONE
who folllows HIM...

I agree with your post Thomas.. Bravo.

In Search of HIS Truth,

Clem

Clem,

Just a quick answer to one of your objections.

You mention that Catholics seem to pick and choose from among the Church Fathers, but before you level such an accusation, you need to realize that you do the same on so many other doctrines of which the Church fathers are quite clear. All Protestants ignore a great deal of what the Fathers taught and they pick and choose which ones had sound teachings and ignore the rest.

Its natural for all of us to pick and choose, particularly when talking about a specific topic in a very focused way. There is no way to reconcile every word the Church fathers said on every important issue. They were people with opinions and those opinions differed.

There are several solutions to this problem. Given the presence of contradictory opinions among the Fathers we can either 1) scratch out and ignore the entire idea 2) we can tease out a consensus or majority opinion thus preserving a place for an idea which most if not all strongly agreed with.

I think that the consenus approach is the one far more respectful of the fact that the Church Fathers knew what they were talking about since they lived the closest in time to the origin of our faith. It seems to me that the Catholic approach of consensus rather than rejecting an idea because some disageed with it is far more respectful than the Protestant approach.

This inclusion of the consensus approach to the beliefs of the early church is a great strength of the Catholic approach. It is also a far more generous to the early believers since we aren't peering back in time and assuming that we know better now how the early church was than they did. It is an assumption that necessarily casts aspersion on the character and intelligence of most of the believers back in those days except for a hypothetically pure church for which we have little corroborative historical evidence. It also casts aspersion on the ability of the Holy Spirit to to protect right worship. Basically what Protestants believe is that the Holy Spirit couldn't protect pure and right Christian worship so that it completely disappeared until Luther rediscovered it a thousand years and some centuries later.

I may find purgatory a hard thing to believe but I also find it hard to believe that the Catholic church went completely wrong almost from the get go. I'd rather repect the conclusions of a basically consistent if somewhat flawed 2000 year old consensus than reject most of it because I can't be 100% sure about it and because I can't find chapter and verse about everything they teach about. Instead I am going to respectfully learn about what they teach. I am going to deeply consider it and I am going to pray about it. What I am not going to do is convince myself of any one approach until I have examined and prayed on them both in a equal way.

The William Webster source you cite is not credible. For instance, he concludes that "Gregory the Great taught that the Apocrypha was not canonical" (Conclusion #7). And yet in St. Gregory's writings, he quotes the so-called apocrypha in several instances. For example:

Book of Pastoral Rule, Part III, Chapter X -
"The envious are therefore to be told that, when they fail to keep themselves from spite, they are being sunk into the old wickedness of the wily foe. For of him it is written, But by envy of the devil death entered into the world" (Wisdom ii. 24).

Chapter XI -
"Let them heat what is said by the mouth of the wise man, The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit" (Wisd. i. 5).

Chapter XV -
"But on the other hand the hasty, while they forestall the time of good deeds, l pervert their merit, and often fall into what is evil, while failing altogether to discern what is good. Such persons look not at all to see what things they are doing when they do them, but for the most part, when they are done, become aware that they ought not to have done them. To such, under the guise of a learner, it is well said in Solomon, My son, do nothing without counsel, and after it is done thou shalt not repent" (Ecclesiasticus xxxii. 24).

Chapter XVII -
"Let the haughty hear, that the beginning of all sin is price" (Ecclus. x. 13).

Chapter XX -
"Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly" (Ecclus. xii. 4).

"And again, Set out thy bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners" (Tobias iv. 17).

Chapter XXI -
"But the Lord shews with what strong censure he disowns them, saying through a certain wise man, Whoso offereth a sacrifice of the substance of the poor doeth as one that killeth the son before the father's eyes" (Ecclus. xxxiv. 20).

Chapter XXV -
"Let them perceive, then, in what guilt those are implicated who, in with-holding the word of preaching from their sinning brethren, hide away the remedies of life from dying souls. Whence also a certain wise man says well, Wisdom that is hid, and treasure that is unseen, what profit is in them both?" (Ecclus. xx. 32).

"Hence through a certain wise man it is said, Young man, speak scarcely in thy cause; and if thou hast been twice asked, let thy answer have a beginning" (Ecclus. xxxii. 10).

Register of the Epistles, Book III, Epistle I -
"But, if your Holiness knew both what I referred to in my letter and what had been done, whether against John the presbyter or against Athanasius, monk of Isauria and presbyter, and wrote to me, I know not; what can I reply to this, since the Truth says through His Scripture, The mouth that lieth slayeth the saul?" (Wisd. i. 11).

And on and on. So given that St. Gregory quotes from the so-called apocrypha to a great extent and even terms the Book of Wisdom "Scripture," as seen in the above quote, why on earth should I give any credence to a writer who claims that "Gregory the Great taught that the Apocrypha was not canonical"?

Regarding the Apocrypha which relates to this BLOG area "Should we pray for the Dead"

Here is an excerpt from one website giving reasons to disregard the apocryphal books. This site lists 21 reasons. I will list only a few
of them here :

(6)They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places

(8.)The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss

(11.)Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted.

So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired."

The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.

One other website that has more documented
information :

http://christiantruth.com/Apocryphaconclusion.html

His Grace and Peace

Clem

Peggy:

You stated: “This inclusion of the consensus approach to the beliefs of the early church is a great strength of the Catholic approach. It is also a far more generous to the early believers since we aren't peering back in time and assuming that we know better now how the early church was than they did. It is an assumption that necessarily casts aspersion on the character and intelligence of most of the believers back in those days except for a hypothetically pure church for which we have little corroborative historical evidence. It also casts aspersion on the ability of the Holy Spirit to to protect right worship. Basically what Protestants believe is that the Holy Spirit couldn't protect pure and right Christian worship so that it completely disappeared until Luther rediscovered it a thousand years and some centuries later.”

Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed protect the pure and right Christian worship before the Reformation, and it was done in a much better way than by the oral traditions handed down by men. The Holy Spirit caused the Scriptures to be written, which is a much closer record of what the apostles taught and preached, than what the early church fathers thought, because it was written by them and their close associates.

You said “I may find purgatory a hard thing to believe but I also find it hard to believe that the Catholic church went completely wrong almost from the get go.”

And yet Paul reprimands the Galatians in Galatians 1:6-9 for this very thing, and this was during the lifetime of the Apostles!

You said “I'd rather repect the conclusions of a basically consistent if somewhat flawed 2000 year old consensus than reject most of it because I can't be 100% sure about it and because I can't find chapter and verse about everything they teach about.”

Sounds like the logic that the Supreme Court used in Planned Parenthood V. Casey. To paraphrase: “We know that our ruling in Roe v. Wade may have been wrong, but to change it now would appear to everyone that the Court is not being consistent and bowing to the political pressures of the day, and we would lose face.” I think we should all seek the Truth not consistency, and then when we find it, implement it in our lives.

“Instead I am going to respectfully learn about what they teach. I am going to deeply consider it and I am going to pray about it. What I am not going to do is convince myself of any one approach until I have examined and prayed on them both in a equal way.”

Agreed.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Clem,

Good Article. I'll defer to the experts on the Apocrytha, and let them argue this, but will say that it looks to me like there are serious problems with basing a doctrine on it's teachings.
At least I'd be a little nervous.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Clem,

Do you bother to check your sources, or do you accept as true anything that a Protestant posts on a webpage concerning the so-called apocrypha?

"They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places."

Simply false. If you believe it to be true, then post evidence affirming the assertion.

"Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity."

The passage:
"The sadness of the heart is every plague: and the wickedness of a woman is all evil. And a man will choose any plague, but the plague of the heart: And ally wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman: And any affliction, but the affliction from them that hate him: And ally revenge, but the revenge of enemies" (17-21)

So how does the above assert the author's claims?

"Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die."

The passage:
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die" (33)

The woman was named Eve; she was the first human to commit sin; as her sin directly led to Adam's, it can be said that because of her, "we all die." See Genesis iii.6.

"Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss."

This is just bunk. The passage:
"A son ill taught is the confusion of the father: and a foolish daughter shall be to his loss" (3)

"Josephus rejected the apocryphal books...'We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine....'"

That's great, Clem - except even Protestants view the Old Testament as containing 39 books. What happened to the other 17?

Keep trying. Pax.

Just to clarify a few points as the non-catholics have some questions about what the Roman Catholics teach on purgatory.

1. Souls in purgatory are guaranteed to reach heaven eventually, and at the very latest, the day when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (on that day, the bodiless souls in purgatory and heaven will receive resurrection bodies).

2. Souls in purgatory are there by God's grace, they did nothing of their own which was sufficient to earn their escape from hell fire.

3. Baptism (by water, blood, or desire) cleanses all sins, mortal and venial, and people who commit no sins after their baptism do not need cleansing in purgatory. (Unfortunately, this teaching led to Christians such as Emperor Constantine delaying baptism until the last possible moment. Also, Ambrose was denied baptism as a child even though he earnestly desired it). Thus the story of the thief on the cross and the parable of the workers who come in at the 11th hour fit this notion very well.

4. The Roman Catholic Church does ascribe lesser authority to the books which the Protestants call the Apocrypha (Catholics call it the Deutero-Canonical books). The Roman Catholic Church can make a very strong biblical case for Purgatory completely apart from 2 Maccabees. Augustine's meditations on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 form much of the basis of our understanding of purgatory.

Personally, I find the argument based 2 Maccabees quite weak but I'd like to see a Protestant explain try to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 without advancing purgatorial notions. In theology class, while I had temporarily left the Church, I wrote a paper trying to debunk purgatory. I found good commentary showing why 2 Maccabees isnt good evidence for purgatory but I was simply unable to explain away 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

How else to explain a day when one's works will be tested, the works which do not pass the test will be burned, the believer suffers loss, and yet is saved. The fires cannot be hell fire because the person in question is saved. Thus, there are people heading towards salvation, heaven, and eternal life with God and yet will suffer loss when their works are tested. Sounds like purgatory to me.

Two interesting articles concerning Purgatory from the Angelic Doctor:

Does the pain of Purgatory surpass the pains of this life?

Is Purgatory the place where souls are cleansed, and the damned punished?

Brandon,

When you misquoted a scripture in another Post
2nd John. I was civil enough to point this out
in what I thought was a kind manner and tried not to impune your intellence and I took it as
an honest mistake ... The other web pages I
cited as I said in my post has much more documented backup for their claims...

My Point was that Josephus and St. Jerome did not consider the apocryphal books as inspired or a part of cannon.

Also I think it is WRONG for Catholics or Protestants to quote from the early church fathers when they agree with their position. Sometimes an early father may write one position on a subject and then later on in his life change his mind and write the exact opposite. It seems that in many doctrinal issues there was disagreement and the Majority would rule when making a decission on a specific doctrine.

The problem is I can use a respected church father to prove my point such as Jerome and You could site another church father to dispute it.
I think using them to back up a doctrine is
shacky. The only reason I bring them up at all
is to show that when they ARE used on this BLOG
it is NOT a unanimous position.

"Richard" Regarding 1Corinthians 3:10-15.. I never saw it as a back up for purgatory. I
explained my interpretation in an earlier post.
In a nut shell our works count towards our rewards in heaven.

Besides Salvation which is a free gift our works are used to give us rewards in heaven above and apart from our salvation. The works are tied into the parables of the talents. I interpret as additional heavenly rewards and not anything
to do with purgatory.

Notice verse 15: "If any man's work is burned up, he wiill suffer loss: but he himself willl be
saved, yet so as through fire." The loss is the
additional rewards but not his salvation because
the verse says HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED.. This
verse makes much more sense as a backup for heavenly rewards then a scripture to back up purgatory.

I will reiterate, Jesus and the apostles taught
much about heaven and hell but I NEVER saw them teach about purgatory.. The word is not
found in NT scripture. Even a discription of purgatory is not found in the NT. The holding area of Abrahams's bosom was a holding place for the righteous souls waiting for the hope of Jesus. Jesus freed them when he preached to the
prisoners when HE desended into hell after HIS
crucifiction. This was not purgatory but
Abraham's boson.

If purgatory was an actual place don't you think
that Jesus or the apostles would have mentioned it clearly in the Gospel accounts or somewhere
else in the NT ??? It is a creation of the Catholic church NOT the first century church of
Jesus and the Apostles. And according to the Catholic Encyclopedia on line this teaching did
not become doctrine until the counsel of Trent in 1563...

I already know what the BLOGGERS will say. Just because it wasn't made an official church doctrine until 1563 It was believed by Jesus and
the apostles and the church just didn't get around to making it official teachibg until
1563.. The church or the Holy Spirit is sure
slow. It took 1400 years to make official such
an important teaching which affects a place where some of it's followers might end up ...

It has been said that the church upholds the
teachings of Jesus and the apostles and that
they do not add to or take away anything from those teachings. The chuch just expands on those
teachings. Yet it appears that the teaching of
purgatory is an additon to those teaching since Jesus did not teach about it and the apostles did not teach about it...

Could it have been some Pagan practice that crept into the church to appease the Pagan gentile population who were conveting to Christianity when Constantine made it the approved religion of his empire ???

In Search of HIS Truth,

Clem

Clem,

Josephus is not considered a Saint by the Church, so while he may be a good reference for some historical aspects of early Christianity, he is not necessarily orthodox in his views. St. Jerome, although he may have protested, conceded to the view of the Church that the deuterocanonical books should be included in the Canon. The author you cited in defense of excluding the disputed books stands discredited, as I showed how one of his claims was false or at least spurious.

My other post referred to the Second Epistle of St. John and his assertion that you must follow the Doctrine of Christ to "have God." It wasn't a misquote - it may have been a misinterpretation on your part. I apologize for the confusion.

Brandon,

See that's what I am talking about. You discount
Josephus. He was a Jew, Jay claimed that the Jews
accepted the Apocryphal books but Josephus as
a Jew and a historian says the Jews did not hold
the apocryphal books as inspired. Now although
you personally may not use Josephus, He has been
used on this BLOG when he agrees with a position
they are trying to prove.

The same with the early church fathers. I guess I will have to take your word for it that Jerome
changed his mind. Is it true that St. Augustine
at one time was considered heretical by the church and then later on, after his death was
considered authoritive by the Church?

As I said in an earlier post I think using the
church fathers be it Catholic or Protestant is
a poor resource because it depends on when that
church fathers writings were in favor or in agreement or out of favor and in disagreement
with the RC church...

That is why I and I am sure many Protestants feel
that you are on more solid ground with the scriptures.

You may feel that you discredited my first source
but there was a second source which I had a link to which was much more detailed and had more
documentationt to support their position.

And I am in agreement with you that you must follow the doctrine of Christ.. Show me where Christ taught about or His apostles taught about Purgatory ? I have already shown in a previous
post where Jay's use of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
was talking about rewards for our works and was
not talking about salvation or proof of purgatory.

So show me where else Jesus or the Apostles taught this doctrine which was not made official
until 1563 by the counsil of Trent... He taught about Heaven and about Hell but He never and the apostles never taught about purgatory.. You have to first believe in purgatory and then look at a verse like the one sited above sideways to get that Paul was talking about purgatory.

Thus, if Christ did not and the apostles did not teach about purgatory what right does the RCC have to ADD to the Teachings of Jesus? They can expand on an existing teaching but apostolic succession does not give them the right to add a
totally new teaching to the church doctrines.

Isn't that adding to the Word ? Isn't that what
Paul and many other NT authors warned about regarding false teachers and false doctrines ?
Paul says if we didn't teach it or even if We
come back to you teaching something contrary to
what has been taught DO NOT BELIEVE IT..?

Let me ask a question a little off topic.
When Moses stood before the burning bush and
God told him to take off your sandals because the
ground you are standing on is Holy. Was that
ground Holy before God appeared in the burning bush? I would have to conclude it was not. The
thing that made it Holy was Gods presence.

My point is if God Says something is Holy or it
is Clean then it IS because God Said it was so..

If we die serving God in Word and Action God Says
the Blood of His Son makes us clean before Him.
There are no extra steps or requirements but the
Blood of Jesus. If we are abiding in Him He is
true to His Many promises. When we die we go directly to heaven or if we rejected Him then we
go to hell... There is no waiting room to get into heaven...

In search of HIS truth,

Clem

Your first source was the so-called "Christian Truth" website which featured the article by William Webster. I showed how one of his conclusions was spurious, so I don't feel the need to give him credence as a historian and a viable source for information pertaining to this discussion. You cited a second source, an unnamed website, and quoted several conclusions from it, most of which I refuted as either unsubstantiated, wrongly interpreted, or irrelevant. You try to cite Josephus as a historical reference for rejecting the deuterocanonical books, but his contention is one of many of the period, which necessitates the intervention of an authority to judge whether or not the books should be included. This authority is Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, which has the divine right and, indeed, the necessity of arbitrating in matters of the Faith. She attempted to settle the matter of Old Testament Canon, amidst the contentions that surrounded it, in the decrees of the Synods of Hippo and Carthage, which were later reaffirmed by the Holy Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent. If you disagree with what the Church teaches, fine. Your opinion is just one of many. The Church, however, if it is indeed divinely instituted, speaks with the authority of God and I choose to "obey God rather than man."

Richard,

I just wanted to address your post a while back on 8/29. Point 4 you mentioned that the according to the Church the Apocrytha is Deutro-Cannonical and the Church ascribes lesser authority to them. What exactly does that mean? To me they are either inspired or not. If they are then we use them as a basis of our understanding of truth and for the formation of doctrine, if they are not then we don't. If we do not know one way or the other then we assume that they are not. Just wondering.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas,
The deutero-canonical books are inspired and always have been.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Then why are they called "deutero-canonical" and have a lesser authority?

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

I don't want to get into the issues with purgatory and all that, but I did want to make one quick point. You said that praying for the dead assumes purgatgory, but I don't think that's right. I can think of one kind of case when praying for the dead makes perfect sense without purgatory. Assuming God has knowledge of the future (which I think is biblical), that God can play a role in someone's life such that the person will be saved (which I think is also biblical), and that I don't know enough details of the life of the person I am praying for (which is true of some people), then I can pray retroactively in those situations. That is, I don't know if the person is someone whose life was such (fill in the blank for whatever that might mean) that the person will be in the resurrection to life. Since God will know during the lifetime of the person that I will later pray for the person, God can answer that prayer by working in the life of the person before death. It's not clear that Paul isn't doing exactly that in II Timothy 1:16-18.

that logic is faulty because if there isn't a purgatory then u either go to heaven or hell when you die. Thus, if you pray for a dead person, they are either already in heaven, in which case they dont need your prayers, or in hell, where your prayers wont do anything. In both cases your prayers dont help anything. The only possible way that praying for dead people could help the deceased is if there is a purgatory in which the deceased is.

Tom and Jeremy,

I think what we are running into here is the problem of reconciling God and time. Does God fit into time or does He stand outside of it? I think that God stands outside of time. Pretty mind bloggling stuff for us mere mortals. I don't really know how this fits in. I tend to agree with Tom that Jeremy's explanation just doesn't fit.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Firstly Purgatory, a place where souls supposedly suffer torture for a time before they enter into heaven, is something that was in fact created by the Roman Catholic Church. You can look that up. It has been a lie from the start and instigated for the continual betterment of the Church of Rome’s finances A subtle way of encouraging a ‘coughing–up for the coffers!’. Indulgences could be earned and certainly bought. Yet earned and bought is contrary to the whole of Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Church decreed all manner of ways to boost its image of power and control over its people. Prayers were said to boost the private supply of grace; saying the rosary (assuming the rosary was a properly blessed one) earned an indulgence of a specified number of days spared from Purgatory. The list goes on and on. The Roman Catholic Church effectively corrupts the pure Gospel in its teaching - about a gift of grace given of God to those who would accept it - by substituting itfor a gospel based on human methods.

If only God knows who is in Purgatory the conclusion can be drawn that God does not inform the Pope or his cohorts, so tell me, just when have enough prayers been said and indulgences gained or paid for????

Bereaved families could continue paying and having masses said forever and a day on a ‘just in case’ principle of fear. All the while lining the churches pockets. Buying God’s favour? For Shame!!

How long will a mother of moderate means be able to pay for masses said for her dead child?
IF she belives this farce she will do so to the limit of her finances. It is completely cruel and wrong and not at all what the bible teaches.

If we must "pay" in both suffering in purgetory and pay in money to supposedly "save" us from it, then Jesus' death on the cross is cheapened. He died to redeem us. Our faith in Him and faith that He died for our sins is what saves us. I am am Fundemental Baptist and I came across this site accidentally, but when I began reading I was compelled to share what I believe. God Bless and keep you.

What an indulgence is and what it is not

The true fact is that Christ died once for all. Once a sinner accepts his salvation, ALL his sins are forgiven--covered by the blood of Jesus. No one can live without sinning--we all sin every day, but we have an atonement for that sin through Jesus. All we have to do is ask for forgiveness. Nothing we do or pray for after a person dies makes one little bit of difference. Salvation is received by making the choice to accept Jesus, or one is lot by not accepting Jesus and making Him Lord of one's life. We have RIGHTEOUSNESS through the blood of Christ. "HE WHO HAD NO SIN WAS MADE SIN FOR US SO THAT WE MIGHT RECEIVE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST." iT'S NEVER anything that we do, but what HE has already done. Yes, we should try to live a holy life, but we are still in the flesh, and the flesh is weak, but there is forgiveness whenever we ask for it. Also, Paul said, in the New Testament, "To be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord." When we die, our spirit either goes to heaven or to hell. There are no second chances, no matter how hard the people we leave behind pray. The decisin we make determines our eternal fellowship or our eternal separation from God. NO ONE but Jesus can do that for us.

The Deutoro-Canonicals do not have a lesser authority.

retraction: I made an earlier erroneous / misleading post saying that the Catholic Church ascribed lesser authority to the deuterocanonical works.

I found a better discussion of the deuterocanonicals, and have learned that they are called deutercanonical because they were written after the books in the protocanonical ones - the disctinction is one of scholarship and not of inspiration or authority.

That being said, no Church doctrines (including purgatory) rest exclusively on the deutercanonicals. One could cut the deuterocanonicals out of the bible and Catholic apologetics and doctrine would not suffer or change in the slightest. For example, Augustine's meditations on which form the basis of our understanding of purgatory rely on 1Corinthins3:10-15 rather than Maccabees.

Scholars used to believe that the Deuterocanonicals were originally written in Greek and not used by Jesus or the Church Fathers. Turns out that they were originally in Hebrew and translated soon after into Greek but the original Hebrew manuscripts were lost for many years.

Scholars used to think the Alexandrian Jews added the deuterocanonicals to Canon held in common with the Palestinians. Turns out the Palestinians removed these books after the time of Jesus because they were "too Christian".

Sorry for the erroneous information, please accept my apologies.

It is my belief and interpretation that St. Paul was praying for the household (family and family home that remained here on earth) not the deceased individual. Also, it is our hope and desire that everyone on earth receive redemption through Jesus Christ but not everyone will. Hell is very real and those who have CHOSEN either out of rebellion or ignorance to suffer there are doing just that.

Haya, what is your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15? Have your read Augustine's meditations on those passages?

I,came across this discussion board by accident and would like to comment.there are pimarliy 62 errors of romain catholiciism.but lets address purgatory;the problem is going to the church fathers for anserws and the traditions of the church and not the word of GOD.the bible is the inspired WORD of GOD.2 Tim.3:16.so lets see what the WORD says.the catholic church says that purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clense the soul 1030-1031.the bible teaches purgatory does not exist.Jesus made purifacation for sins on the cross.Hebrews1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,when He had by Himself purged our sins sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. end of discussion Jesus by Himself purged our sins!!! our are you calliing the HOLY SPIRIT a liar.

First of all, Purgatory is not real. There is no such thing, and I challenge you to find proof in Scripture to show that it is. Second, you dont go straight to heaven or hell after you die. That happens in the final judgment. When Jesus returns, he will take his people to heaven, and then come back to cleanse the Earth. Last, in Ecclesiastes 9:5, it shows that :"The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Praying for the dead helps no one. Good luck on that though.

David,
If you don't believe in purgatory, then you don't believe the Bible. Take a look at our post explaining the Biblical realities of purgatory and explain where we are wrong.

The Bible also says that all those in heaven rejoice when one sinner comes back to God. Maybe your understanding of Ecclesiastes is a little off, huh?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Perhaps David does not believe in purgatory, but still believes in the Bible. Perhaps he has never read 1 Cor 13:10-15 or came to the wrong conclusion when he did.

Doesn't the "if you do not agree with me, then you have rejected the Bible" approach sound rather Protestant / Sola Scriptura / no Church authority? Or to put it another way, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church emphasis on the authority of Tradition suggest that many different people could, without any fault of their own, read the Bible, accept it, and yet still not come to the right conclusion?

All,

Praying for the dead is condemned. You praying for them cannot cleanse their sin. That would not be right because then someone on Earth could sin all they wanted to because they know someone would pray for them and help them. The only way praying can help is if the person is still alive. Sure it's okay to pray for the family of the person who passed away, but it isn't okay to ask God to have mercy on a dead person.

ONLY THAT PERSON can admit when they are wrong, ask God's forgiveness for what they have done, and pray because our Loving Father will forgive them. If they do that with all their heart, then God will forgive them, he will forgive any person who wants to be forgiven.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 tells us that praying for the dead is useless. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten" Since they do not know anything, they cannot ask for forgiveness.

PURGATORY IS NONSENSE. It does not teach ANYWHERE in the Bible that there is a purgatory. After people die, they do not go straight to Heaven or Hell. It says this in the Revelation. When Christ comes back, he will resurrect the dead in Christ to come back to Heaven with him, and he will also take those who are still alive and have the Seal of God back to heaven as well. Hell is when Christ comes for the SECOND RESURRECTION. This is when he raises the wicked and the evil people who are still living. When he burns them, that will be what is known as Hell. They will be cast into a Lake of Fire. Revelation 19:20.

Mark 7:7 "Howbeit in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"
That one speaks for itself.

David

Jay and Broken Record

Purgatory is in no way Biblical. In this way, does this mean we work our way into heaven. If we can just work our way, then Christs sacrifice was in vain. Why would he save us from our sin if he knew we could just go to purgatory and get saved? You can't work your way to heaven.

I'm a little tired right now so i dont feel like quoting the scripture, so ill just let you look it up

Ecclestiastes 9:5, i know i have said it over and over, but why dont you look it up and tell me your interpretation instead of just saying Im off. It says that the dead are basically in an unconcious state and don't know anything. Those in Heaven include God and the angels. We know they are in heaven. Some humans are in heaven too. for example, Enoch walked with God and was taken into heaven. But in no way is there anything that says we should pray to them, or pray to those who aren't in heaven and are just in an unconcious state. Jesus is the one mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5

"Here's an example of how protestants themselves rely on tradition as well as scripture: where does the Bible say we should change "the Lord's Day" from Saturday to Sunday? Even in Acts the apostles go to the temple on Saturday. This is only handed down through Tradition - the equal complement to the Bible." that was your quote Jay. All i can say is Wow...Do you really think the tradition of the church is equal to the commandments of God? Obviously you think it is greater, because you CHANGED the Sabbath.

Come up with some solid evidence for SOMETHING Please.

David

David wrote:
"Why would he save us from our sin if he knew we could just go to purgatory and get saved?"

Purgatory is not a place for the unsaved to become saved - it is a place of painful purification for those who are already saved. According to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, someone who is saved may suffer loss because they have works of poor quality which do not stand the test of fire. This is the essence of purgatory. Do you have an alternate explanation of these passages?

In short, Jesus saves us from our sins so we can avoid hellfire. But as long as we remain attached to our sin, our souls will refuse to gaze upon God in all his glory (Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God). In his infinite mercy, God cleanses our hearts and our souls in purgatory so that we can see him.

To put it another way, who would want to spend an eternity with me in heaven unless I were first cleansed of my pride, arrogance, and unkindness? Remember that God does more than declare us righteous, he also changes us and makes us righteous.

Broken Record,

If someone has already been saved, then there is no use of purgatory. How do you even think you can get to heaven by being proud arrogant, and unkind? Not that I am one to judge, I have made mistakes too, but don't you think that if you have these characteristics, you might not be pleasing God? Why would God declare us righteous, then have to make us righteous. Humans must CHOOSE to do what is right. If they choose good in their hearts, then God recognizes that.

As I said before, your explanation of purgator seems to say that even if you are bad on earth, it doesn't matter because you will go to purgatory and be cleansed.

What 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 says is that the foundation of our works should be Jesus. Faith without good works is dead. What this text explains to us is that the people that do good fromt he heart will be rewarded, and those who do bad will suffer, but it does not say that they will go to purgatory and be cleansed of sin. It doesn't say that God would save all the sinful people in Purgatory. Then EVERYONE would go to heaven.

I tie my interpretation of this with Jude Verse 23. The sinful will be helped and in a way, saved by the clean people. they will be helped out of the fire, helping them to start new and leading them to the Lord.

God does nothing to affect our free will. He lets us make our own decisions, so if you never turn to God, and you KNOW that you are sinning and KNOW that you should turn to God, then I don't see how you can get to heaven. Purgatory came about because of indulgences. People would pay to get their family members who died out of suffering. I won't go into too much detail.

Praying for the dead does not help them to be forgiven. The dead people had their chance. They had to make their choice when they were alive to turn to God. If they did not and knew what they were doing was wrong, then you can do nothing for them.

Jesus is the salvation, not purgatory. If we are already saved and God wants us to be part of his Kingdom, why would he make us burn in purgatory first. NO SCRPITURE to back you up, once again.

David

I have been reading my Bible over and over, and yes, I have found where it says that praying for the dead is wrong.

Look up these texts.
they answer these questions:

How much does a dead person know? "For the living know that they sahll die: but the dead know not anything." First part of Ecclesiastes 9:5

Do the righteous who die praise the Lord in death? "The dead praise not the Lord, niether any that go down into silence." Psalm 115:17

CAN THE LIVING COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEAD?

Well, I have here many questions of which the answers say, NO, they can't.

Do the dead ever return to their homes after death to either haunt or bring comfort? "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more" Job 7:9, 10

What conditions make it impossible for the living to talk with the dead? Well...They are asleep. Just Read Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10; Job 34:14,15

I have also just learned about the criminal on the cross with Jesus our Savior. Did Jesus say that he would be with him in paradise THAT DAY. No, he said he would be with him in paradise. In other words, he promised him salvation.

Will the righteous go to Heaven?
Of course they will. "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:1-3

When will the righteous go to heaven?
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together and with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17

Are the righteous who have died in heaven now?
No. Paul says so in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 that they are asleep. Some have questioned what is meant when Paul says in Verse 14, "them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." In Greek it reads "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose; so also we believe that God, through Jesus, will lead forth with him those who fell asleep"

Also look at Deuteronomy 18:10-12. It tells you not to communicate or try to communicate with the dead.

These are things that God tells us. I get this from the Bible. I hope you don't doubt these verses.

David

David wrote: What 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 says is that the people that do good fromt he heart will be rewarded, and those who do bad will suffer

Did you notice the part about the person who does bad suffering and yet still being saved? This suggests there are three ways to enter the next life:
1. Damned (away from me, I never knew you)
2. Suffering loss. (due to bad works) yet still being saved
3. not suffering loss (due to good works) in addition to being saved.

I noticed an another post you made suggesting three types of people in the afterlife:
1. Damned.
2. Unable to hear our prayers because they are completely unaware.
3. a select few (like Enoch, Samuel, Elijah and Moses) in heaven with God who are aware of earthly proceedigs.

Do you notice the same striking similarity that I do? If we agree that 1 Corinthians 3 speaks of a cleansing fire which causes loss to some of the saved, you've just accepted the Catholic doctrine on purgatory! More and more, you seem to be agreeing with Catholic teaching, rather than disagreeing.

Broken Record,

Just wondering, how do you respond so fast?...just curious because my computer takes long to update. Oh well just a thought.

What I added to that suffering comment is that, well of course they are going to suffer, there are always consequences for sin, but the good people will help them out of sin and lead them to God as said in Jude verse 23.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how you tie Enoch, Samuel, Elijah and Moses into Purgatory, but I for sure have never heard a Catholic pray to or for them. And why would you? First, you shouldn't pray to them because Jesus is the only mediator, but also, why pray for them because they are already infinitely better off than you.

Don't take one text and make it your foundation for this doctrine. God didn't tell you that there was a stopping point between Heaven and earth. If Jesus knew there was a purgatory, why didn't he tell us when he was on earth.

And are you totally disregarding all my other text. WE SHOULD NOT PRAY FOR THE DEAD!

Do you think everyone goes to heaven? If so, why? Where did God say this?

You're blowing all I've said out of whack. When did I accept Purgatory???? I did NOT agree with that teaching.

Yes, I did say that the people who are good of heart will be rewarded. Did I say they would go to heaven? Did I say the sinful people would go to Heaven? If you are sinful, then yes, you will be alive, but for what purpose? Faith without good works is dead. If you are alive and pure of heart, then you are really alive.

David

P.S. Please provide more on how it is okay to pray for the dead, you really haven't answered about all the scripture i have given. OH YEAH, you can't because that's from the bible.

David,

Did you not tell me that 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 speaks of people who will suffer loss because of their bad works and yet be saved? That's purgatory. If you prefer, we can call it "the fires of First Corinthians Chapter Three verses Ten Through Fifteen".

Now you tell me that the book of Jude says that the good can help people out of sin. That's prayer for the souls in purgatory.

Your own words and scripture references support Catholic doctrine better than I ever could. Maybe you have a calling to the priesthood or something and can help Catholics embrace the truths of the Catholic Church with greater appreciation.

Out of your own mouth do you ummm.... vindicate purgatory.

As for asking people to pray for you, you said yourself that the reason I can ask you to pray for me even though you are not divine is because you can hear me. You then go on to say that the dead in general cannot hear me because they are unaware. Then to top it all off you mention Moses, Enoch, and Elijah and how we have evidence that they are aware and are in heaven. Thus removing the only real obstacle to asking these people to pray for us.

You have just explained to me why the Catholic Church requires evidence of that someone is in God's friendship before telling the faithful that they can ask specific people who have entered the next life to pray for them.

You remind me of someone I met at an Evangelical Protestant Church who rejected most points of Christian doctrine (divinity of Christ, sanctity of life in the womb, inerrancy of Scripture) who somehow convinced me (unintentionally I think) to return to the Roman Catholic Church.

Post a comment