At the beginning of Mark 9, Jesus says to His Disciples, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” And so, six days later, He takes three of those Disciples, Peter, James, and John, and takes them up a mountain, probably Mt. Tabor, and is there transfigured before them. He’s suddenly brilliant, with His garments dazzling white, and Elijah and Moses show up and converse with Him, and God the Father even speaks, praising Him (Mk. 9:2-8). And as they come down the mountain, Jesus speaks to them, but about the Cross (Mk. 9:9-10): “And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of man should have risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant.”
Their confusion is understandable: how could the glorious Christ, beloved of the Father, die? St. Luke clues us in to the fact that this is actually what Moses and Elijah had been speaking about with Jesus on the mountain: “And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:9-10). It’s this blend of Cross and glory that the Apostles struggle with, and one of the questions that they ask Jesus is “how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?” (Mk. 9:12). We see the same shock elsewhere. For example, right after Peter correctly proclaims Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Mt. 16:16), Jesus unpacks the meaning of that exalted title, to Peter’s horror (Mt. 16:21-23):
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”
So these are the two visions of glory: Peter’s is one of glory without the Cross; Jesus’ is one of glory through the Cross. At the Last Supper, Jesus lays out His vision, explaining that it’s only through suffering that He’ll come into His glory, and only through suffering that we will, too (John 12:23-26):
The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him.
Eventually, the Christians get it, which is why we find St. Paul saying things like (2 Tim. 2:3-6, 11-13),
Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. [….] The saying is sure: “If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful—” for he cannot deny himself.
and Romans 8:15-18,
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
This is the Christian message: God saves us while we’re huge messes, but He doesn’t want to just leave us there. He wants to make us Saints, and that is hard work. Sometimes, that’s external suffering, like persecution. Other times, it’s internal suffering, like the suffering of turning away from sin. Our glory is intimately tied to our suffering for Christ.
It’s true that He could just transform us instantaneously, and in a few rare cases, He seems to do just that. But He generally chooses not to. For most of us, barring a certain honeymoon period, we have to actually struggle against sin. Hebrews 12:4 reminds us that “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood,” and that this suffering is a sign of a Father’s disciplining His children (Heb. 12:5-11), concluding that “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” This discipline is a process of purification to prepare us for Heavenly glory.
If you can understand this, then you can see why Purgatory exists. Many of us die before this purification process is completed, and so Our Lord completes it before we enter Heavenly glory. This is the whole logic of the Cross. Christ doesn’t die on the Cross to free us from bearing our crosses. His Death on the Cross is to give our crosses meaning. And so as we approach Heavenly glory, to that place where “nothing unclean shall enter” (Revelations 21:27), we’ll either approach it freed of all of our sinful attachments, or we’ll be made that way. This seems to be the meaning of St. Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15,
According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
If you understand the message of the Cross, you’ll see why Purgatory makes sense but also why it’s appealing to want to deny it. Peter didn’t want to hear about Jesus being glorified through suffering (Matthew 16:21-22), and he didn’t want to hear about how he would be glorified through suffering, either (John 21:17-21):
Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.” Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”
So it’s very tempting for us to find a theology in which Jesus just takes away our Crosses or makes us Saints instantly. But that’s not the view of glory that Jesus offers us: our glorification is through the Cross (His and ours) or nothing at all.
Brilliant catechesis! The quotes are also pretty good evidence against the ‘justification by faith alone’ doctrines of the Protestants. It seems that they are all too happy to ignore such powerful scriptures relating to the necessity of bearing good fruit, carrying the cross, and living as free as possible from the ‘slavery of sin’ in this world; such as Jesus taught when He said:
“…how sayest thou: you shall be free? Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” (John 8:33)
It seems like this assertion, “Many of us die before this purification process is completed, and so Our Lord completes it before we enter Heavenly glory” could be strengthened and supported by this verse, “I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.” Phil 1:6
Hi Joe,
Respectfully, many of us want to deny it because we don’t believe it’s taught in Scripture, not because we find the prospect unappealing. Outside of your unexpounded-on quotation of 1 Corinthians, I’m not sure there’s any positive presentation of evidence for that belief here – just a discussion of the uncontested fact that, in this life, suffering is used to produce character. I don’t think it’s really fair to the Protestant position to say we reject the belief because “it’s very tempting”; we reject it because it’s lacking evidence.
To give a little bit of expansion on a Protestant view of 1 Cor 3: so we have here a book that Paul writes to Corinth, obviously; the occasion for his writing is that the church has been led astray into factionalism, with each faction boasting that its superiority is grounded on the greatness of its leader (“We follow Paul, the great evangelist!” “Well, we follow Peter, the chief apostle!”) rather than the gospel of Christ.
(Protestants at this point derive entirely too much enjoyment from the fact that claiming Peter as leader is specifically called out. In fairness, Protestants are probably too slow to note their own tendencies towards celebrity factionalism.)
It’s in this context that Paul discusses, in chapter 3, that leaders don’t matter – only the gospel, and the work of God, matters. Verse 9 introduces the theme of the church in Corinth as “God’s building.” Verse 10 then continues the metaphor, noting that Paul “laid a foundation as a wise builder,” that is, that he was the first to work on the “building” of the church. (This parallels his metaphor in verse 6: “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God makes it grow.”) He then notes that each one should build (should build the church, again) with care, because the only possible foundation for the church is “the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Verse 12 then continues the thought, noting that if anyone builds (and, again, the context here is still building the church), their work will be shown for what it is. This passage isn’t even discussing the holiness of individual believers; rather, it’s about Paul’s primary topic in the first chapters: the work of various teachers in the church. Paul’s own work, he’s saying, will be revealed by the Lord to be of quality, for which he will be rewarded; the work of fractious teachers will be revealed for stubble, and they will enter the kingdom without any reward for it.
Note that the focus here is on revelation, not suffering: the work will be shown for what it is, it will be brought to the light of Day, it will be revealed by fire. The metaphors of fire and light are used interchangeably, because they serve the same purpose: sticking an object in the fire proves whether it is metal or hay. (Note, as well, that it’s not the person who is put in the fire – it’s his work, the work he’s already completed, that’s tested to see whether it’s worthy of reward.)
This theme then continues in verses 16-18, which warn against those who do not merely build the church poorly, but who actively destroy that church: “for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.” Again, there’s one continuing thought here.
Maybe you disagree with that reading – but I think it’s a pretty plausible one, grounded in both the immediate context and the topic of the book as a whole. Is it really so unreasonable that we would not say, “Yes, this must absolutely be read as teaching the post-death expurgation of our souls?”
Irked,
I definitely don’t mean to suggest that this is the only reason that Protestants or anyone else struggle with the idea of Purgatory, but I think it’s a significant-enough reason for many people that it’s worth addressing outright. This post doesn’t just answer that visceral objection, though: it also shows the relation between Purgatory, the Cross, and suffering. I also don’t mean to say that 1 Corinthians 3 “must absolutely be read as teaching the post-death expurgation of our souls.” In fact, I think you’ll find my language quite cautious: “This seems to be the meaning of St. Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.”
While we may not see exactly eye-to-eye on this, I wonder if you and I couldn’t at least agree to the following?
1. One reason that many people struggle with the idea of Purgatory is that it seems distasteful, compared to the prospect of instantaneous spiritual transformation.
2. This is the same reason that many people struggle with the Cross and with the process of sanctification here on earth.
3. The concept of Purgatory, if true, is consistent with the Christian experience of sanctification here on earth. That is: belief in Purgatory is consistent with the lived experience of the Christian life (in which few of us are granted instantaneous spiritual transformations to overcome our struggles with sin).
4. The lack of an explicit, unambiguous proof-text for Purgatory is not convincing evidence for its non-existence (as a place or, more accurately, as a process), since few parts of Christian theology are held to (or could meet) such a standard.
5. Jews before, during, and after Christ prayed for the dead, as did the early Christians.
6. Such prayers are not condemned by Christ, the Apostles, the Scriptures, or the early Church.
7. On the contrary, such prayers are explicitly lauded in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, a text treated as Scripture by many early Christians.
8. Additionally, that Paul is praying for the deceased Onesiphorus is the most probable read of 2 Timothy 1:16-18.
9. These prayers for the dead are best explained by a belief in some sort of post-death purgative process.
I.X.,
Joe
Hi Joe,
That’s fair – I shouldn’t assign you more forceful language than you use. My apologies. I guess the question I’m left with, then, is, “What is the positive reason for believing in the doctrine?” Which appears to be the subject of your list, so, to that:
1. One reason that many people struggle with the idea of Purgatory is that it seems distasteful, compared to the prospect of instantaneous spiritual transformation.
Heh, so we run into trouble right off the bat here, because I’m not sure I do concede this. I’m sure that it’s true for somebody somewhere; I wouldn’t feel comfortable suggesting it’s a big driver for “many” people, or that it’s a major reason. I don’t personally feel any particular discomfort at the idea – except so far as I don’t think it’s true! – and I suspect that’s true for a lot of Protestants.
I think the whole framing of “struggle with” is misleading here. I don’t think many Protestants struggle with Purgatory, because that would suggest they feel some urge to accept the doctrine. I think, bluntly, most of them just figure it’s made up and don’t give it a second thought.
2. This is the same reason that many people struggle with the Cross and with the process of sanctification here on earth.
Who are we talking about here: Christians, or people outside the church? The call to yield to Christ, to suffer with him, certainly is a reason why some people refuse him, or why some come to a prosperity gospel that’s far from the true one. But it seems peculiar to say that people who are fully willing to accept suffering with Christ would then draw the line at… continuing to suffer with Christ, for no other reason than that they don’t like the idea.
3. The concept of Purgatory, if true, is consistent with the Christian experience of sanctification here on earth.
Of sanctification? I might grant that. But while you’ve focused on Purgatory as a time of testing of the faith to produce perseverance, my understanding is that it’s also a time of expiation – of granting forgiveness of sins. Trent, as I read it, says something like that: “If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, let him be anathema.”
And, sanctification aside, I find that entirely inconsistent with the doctrine of justification. There remains no debt to be paid for my sin; Jesus paid it all. So I’d add the following statement:
3a. The concept of Purgatory is inconsistent with the Christian experience of justification.
4. The lack of an explicit, unambiguous proof-text for Purgatory is not convincing evidence for its non-existence
Certainly there are things that exist that are not unambiguously discussed in Scripture; just because there is no explicitly named angel Bob does not mean there can be no angel named Bob. But I’m persuaded of the sufficiency of Scripture; anything of theological necessity for us is taught in its passages. If no such teaching is present, two possibilities remain: either Purgatory does not exist, or knowledge of it is unnecessary for right Christian doctrine and practice. Neither is consistent with the Catholic position.
since few parts of Christian theology are held to (or could meet) such a standard.
I don’t know about “explicit proof texts,” but I do think all of Christian theology should be held to the standard of “compelling evidence from Scripture” – particularly those doctrines where we pronounce anathema against anyone rejecting them.
5. Jews before, during, and after Christ prayed for the dead, as did the early Christians.
6. Such prayers are not condemned by Christ, the Apostles, the Scriptures, or the early Church.
7. On the contrary, such prayers are explicitly lauded in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, a text treated as Scripture by many early Christians.
If we’re to admit the silence alluded to by (6) as any kind of evidence, I’ll reply, “Though 2 Maccabees is not treated as Scripture by Christ, the Apostles, the Jews prior to Christ, or many early Christians (i.e., Athanasius, Melito, etc.).” That’s not even an appeal to silence: the last two explicitly omit it.
Surely the argument here is not that any contemporary beliefs held by Jews that are not explicitly rebuked in Scripture are to be taken as accurate?
8. Additionally, that Paul is praying for the deceased Onesiphorus is the most probable read of 2 Timothy 1:16-18.
I do not concede that, no.
9. These prayers for the dead are best explained by a belief in some sort of post-death purgative process.
I don’t see that this follows. I could as easily argue from the claims you’ve made here that the Jews of the time believed it possible to pray people out of hell, or out of a neutral area. We’re not given much detail on a set of beliefs that are themselves nowhere affirmed in Scripture.
So I guess I substantively disagree with 1, 4, 8, and 9, quibble with 2 and 7, and think 3 is asking the wrong question.
Irked,
When you die, even if you have asked for forgiveness for the sins you have committed, and have been forgiven for those sins, can you say you will be completely free of all inclinations to sin?
Wouldn’t you agree that those inclinations we may still have in our forgiven state won’t exist in heaven?
If you have that desire at the moment of death, but don’t the moment you enter heaven, what would you call the process for removing it? Catholics call it Purgatory.
Peace to you,
Joe
(I answered this below, so not replying further here.)
Hello Irked,
Are you familiar with the difference, in Catholic theology, between eternal and temporal punishment for sin? That’s what the quote from Trent in your response to number 3 above is referring to. The council is saying that the eternal punishment is paid, but there remains temporal punishment. I wanted to make sure that distinction was clear before evaluating your response.
Thanks as always for you charitable dialog here.
Hi Jordan,
I have a layman’s understanding of the difference, though I’d certainly be open to hearing more. I deny that either applies to the Christian, however; “there is now no condemnation,” &c. The balance sheet is fully satisfied in all ways.
Hi Irked,
Okay, briefly then, the Catholic church teaches that sin has a “double consequence.” Grave sin (sin that John calls “sin that leads to death” in 1 John 5:16-17) causes an eternal punishment, that of separation from God.
All sin, whether grave or not, also causes a “temporal punishment,” a reparation that justice demands we make. Dr. David Anders (of Called to Communion) often gives the analogy of his son breaking a window in the house with a baseball. When his son asks for forgiveness, of course he grants that forgiveness as a loving father. However, the glass still needs to be cleaned up, and it is proper for the son to do this, not as a condition of his forgiveness, but as an opportunity for him to mature.
The classic Biblical example of this “double consequence” can be found in 2 Samuel 11 and 12, when King David commits adultery with Bathsheba and kills her husband Uriah. The prophet Nathan comes and accuses him of this terrible sin, and David responds by repenting and asking for forgiveness (2 Samuel 13; Psalm 51). Nathan responds, “Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” (2 Samuel 13-14). In other words, his eternal punishment is forgiven, but there remains a debt to be paid. Moses is another example of this, as he entered heaven but was prevented from entering the Holy Land because of his sin in striking the rock. (Number 20: 10-13)
The Council of Trent (as you quoted) condemns the idea that there is no temporal punishment remaining to be paid after we have been forgiven eternal punishment. From the Catholic point of view, everyone in purgatory has been forgiven of all their sins and is bound for heaven. So your statement is half right and half wrong. Purgatory is indeed a “time of expiation,” of making amends for sin. However, it is not a time “of granting forgiveness of sins.” Forgiveness has already been granted. The relationship has been restored, but we have not yet been perfected.
I wanted to make sure that difference was clear, so please let me know if it is not. That said, I’m curious how you would read the biblical examples I cited above. Do you agree they lay out separate consequences for sin? If not, how would you read them?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
P.S. Apologies if you’ve covered some of this ground in other posts. I have trouble keeping up with very active threads like this. Just point me to another place if you’ve already discussed it.
Correction: the Biblical citations from Samuel are 2 Samuel 12:13-14; not 2 Samuel 13-14.
Hi Jordan,
No, I haven’t covered it elsewhere yet, and I appreciate the expansion!
So I would similarly allow for two categories of actions that God takes/can take towards us, but I would characterize them differently: rather than eternal/temporal punishments, I would divide them into punishments and discipline. The father who assigns his son to pay back the cost of the broken window is satisfying justice, fitting punishment to crime – that’s a punishment.
By contrast, consider the father whose son accidentally burns the house down. When he assigns the son to split wood for the family in perpetuity in their new home, he isn’t balancing any scales – the boy will never split enough wood to pay for the house. But with every swing of the axe, the lesson repeats: remember the consequences of your actions.
My understanding of the cost of sin precludes any sense of balancing scales: my attempts to make reparations would only put me further in debt, because even my righteousness is desperately wicked. Further, I think the New Testament teaches pretty clearly that we’re no longer under the law; when Paul in Romans asks whether we should sin more, his answer is not that we fear punishment; it’s that we cannot, because that’s not who we were made to be. (I don’t intend that as a proof, here, which it’s obviously too brief to be – just an explanatory note. I’m a little bit concerned about having too many conversations going at once, so please take this as primarily just a clarification rather than a full argument.)
I’d apply a similar argument here, and again, I think the critical distinction is whether we view this as (in your words) “a reparation that justice demands we make.” There is no balancing of the scales in the death of David’s son; there can be none, for the price of David’s sin (like all sin) is vast beyond all human reckoning. (By that same token, there would have been nothing unjust in God permitting the child to live – as indeed David prays that He would do. If justice had demanded this death, that prayer would have been a request for injustice.) But David can be chastened; he can be taught, in a way not premised on any kind of evening of accounts, the terrible weight of death, in a way he’s clearly not grasped.
In our particular context, it seems like a fair response at this point would be to say, “So isn’t it possible that chastening continues beyond death?” And I’d agree that nothing said so far establishes that it does not – but more critically, I’d argue that nothing said so far establishes that it does, and that the burden of the proof would seem to be on the side requiring the belief that it does. (In any event, in this view we would have to disavow any sense of this being a “payment,” which I believe has knock-on effects for the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit, etc.)
Hello Irked,
I certainly understand not wanting too many conversations going on at once. I can barely keep up with reading them, much less dialoging on multiple fronts, as you do.
We seem to agree on a great deal. There are a number of possible threads to pursue in your latest response.
First, I define “chastening” or “discipline” as “punishment with the intent of perfecting the one who is punished.” Chastening/discipline is a particular kind of punishment, rather than something other than punishment. Would you agree with this definition?
Second, you note that there seems to be nothing in scripture against the notion that this chastening occurs after death, but also argue that there is nothing in favor of the idea that it continues after death. I agree that it is not explicitly stated in scripture. However, it can be deduced from what is explicitly stated. For example,
1. We are not perfect prior to or at the moment of our death. (1 John 1:8 and others)
2. We are perfect in heaven. (1 John 3:2 and others)
3. Therefore, something must happen to us between the moment of our death and our perfection in heaven. We must somehow be transformed.
4. Growth in perfection and holiness is only accomplished through suffering. (Isaiah 6: 6-7; Romans 5: 3-5; Hebrews 2:10; and others)
5. Therefore, our transformation after death is accomplished through suffering.
6. Growth in perfection and holiness is only accomplished when God acts to transform us, not something we accomplish or choose on our own. (Philippians 2: 12-13 and others)
7. Therefore, our transformation after death is accomplished through God’s act.
Putting these premises together, then, we have a situation where we are suffering, God is responsible for this suffering, and this suffering is intended to grow us in perfection and holiness. In other words, God is chastening us after death, before we enter into the beatific vision.
This does not cover all the dogmas of purgatory, of course, but what do you think of this argument, so far as it goes? I want to establish what common ground we can before delving back into the discussion of “balancing the scales,” as you put it above.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Good questions, and I appreciate your understanding. To your first, I think I’d say that (at least as I’d use the terms for the purposes of this conversation), punishment specifically implies a sense of legal restitution, of balancing the scales, or of proportionality of response. From your post above, that’s the sense in which I understand you to use the word, as well.
By contrast, chastening/discipline (again, as I’m using them here) are unconcerned with justice. A child can be given discipline, not in response to things he has already done, but so as to improve his character for things yet to come. Thus the sense in which the word is used in Hebrews 12 – that the role of discipline is to “produce[] a harvest of righteousness,” not to balance the scales of sin. (Indeed, discipline seems to be described here, not as a consequence of their sin, but as a part of the source of their struggle with sin: that is, that God is forcing them to struggle with sin as a means of discipline to produce character.)
So while the actions may be similar, the nature and aims of those actions are fundamentally different. Does that make sense? Under those definitions, no, I would not describe chastening as a kind of punishment. (One could of course choose different words to represent these concepts; I’m trying here to fit them to the particular sense in which I understand you to use “punishment” above.)
To your second question, I think (4) is our primary point of disagreement. I certainly agree that my holiness is established only through suffering – but I don’t agree that the suffering is necessarily mine, and indeed I don’t think that any amount of suffering would suffice to provide me with sufficient holiness. Rather, I see my holiness as something established by the suffering of Christ – thus, for instance, Hebrews 10: “By that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” There’s an already/not yet tension there, as in the subsequent verses – “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” – but the ultimate nature of my holiness is clearly all of him and none of me.
So when you point to Isaiah 6, I’d reply that my guilt has already been taken away, and my sin fully atoned for. In Romans 5, I’d agree that my character is improved by the process of suffering towards sanctification – but again, that’s not something that my suffering is ever going to complete. In Hebrews 2 – well, again, I’d say with the author of the book that Christ’s suffering also perfects me.
Absent (4), I don’t think (5) or (7) meaningfully work in the sense that you mean them. Thus, it’s entirely possible for my final transformation to be something apart from suffering, time, etc. And the descriptions we see don’t seem to suggest that: when 1 Corinthians 13 speaks of the change, it is of having our sight restored. When Christ speaks to the thief on the cross – a man who surely has sin debts aplenty – there’s no indication of forthcoming suffering, only of coming paradise. Again, I don’t consider these unassailable implications, but I think the burden of proof rests on establishing that there is (that there must be) such a thing.
Hello Irked,
Thanks for your detailed responses. You make a good point that the concept of “discipline” should be extended to proactive situations. We see this frequently in scripture; fasting is a good example.
From the text of 2 Samuel, however, David’s suffering is imposed reactively. It is suffering given to him by God in response to his sin (“because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord”). In other words, it is punishment.
Let me then turn to the idea of “balancing the scales” as you put it. First, when I use the term “justice,” I use it in the sense it is often used in Catholic teaching, that of rendering to each person their due (see CCC 1807, for example). Justice does not demand an absolutely equal “balancing of scales.”
For example, suppose a six year old girl broke a window by playing with a baseball when she wasn’t supposed to. Then, sometime later, a thief breaks the same window trying to get into the house. Justice demands different things for each of them, even though the end result was the same. What is due to the child is different from what is due to the criminal, according to the principle of justice.
We see this principle in Jesus’s teaching in Luke 12: 47-48. What is due to the servant who knows his master’s will is different from what is due to the servant who does not know, even though both failed to do the master’s will.
You refer to the idea that it is impossible for anyone to make restitution or reparation for sins, that, as you say, “my attempts to make reparations would only put me further in debt, because even my righteousness is desperately wicked.” I agree with you that our eternal debt of sin can only be paid by Christ.
There is however, the second debt, the temporal debt which is not infinite in scope. I’m not sure how else to argue for the existence of this second debt, other than simply to point to what we see in every sin. When the criminal breaks the window, he is breaking his relationship with God, and that debt he cannot repay, he can only repent. But in the temporal order, he is not breaking an infinite number of windows. Thus, he can repay the debt of one window. He can render to his fellow human what is due in justice. Even vast and grave sins like murder or genocide are not infinite in scope (again, in their temporal sense). And because God is a God of justice, my argument is that He will ensure that this temporal justice is rendered, whether before or after death.
I believe we’ve progressed far enough in this conversation to see that behind the disagreement about purgatory is a larger disagreement about the nature of justification, namely the 500 year old disagreement about whether justification is imputed or infused. I assume this is why you believe that your “holiness is established” by the suffering of Jesus. You mean it is established in an imputed sense. There is also likely a larger disagreement about what “perfection” means. Jesus, for example, was perfect his whole life, yet was still “made perfect through suffering,” as Hebrews 2:10 tells us. In other words, perfection is not an absolute, but rather has different degrees.
I’ll leave the conversation here, since the scope of it is beyond this original post, though of course I welcome any further response. Thanks for the dialog.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
From the text of 2 Samuel, however, David’s suffering is imposed reactively.
I agree, but I don’t think that obviates viewing it as discipline. David’s child dies because of David’s sin; the question is, is this done in order to balance the scales, or as a lesson? I think we have to view it as the latter; when God says that David’s sin is forgiven, I read that to say that the balance of justice is satisfied.
And, again, what are we to make of David’s prayers for his son? Are these prayers that God would be unjust? If justice demands this death, the boy should die; if the death is a lesson, however, there’s no necessity.
Even vast and grave sins like murder or genocide are not infinite in scope (again, in their temporal sense). And because God is a God of justice, my argument is that He will ensure that this temporal justice is rendered, whether before or after death.
So let’s return to the example here. David sleeps with a man’s wife and then has the man murdered to cover up his sin. How does the killing of the child pay to anyone what he is due? What court would approve this as a way of settling the balance?
I would think that, even temporally, David deserves death for what he’s done here – and the child deserves nothing. Yet that’s not at all the standard described here.
Further, I think you’re quite right to point out that God even states why the child will die. It isn’t because of his temporal crimes – his broken windows, as it were, of adultery and murder. It’s a response to his scorning of God. Does that not ground this as a response to something far beyond his mere earthly crimes?
I believe we’ve progressed far enough in this conversation to see that behind the disagreement about purgatory is a larger disagreement about the nature of justification, namely the 500 year old disagreement about whether justification is imputed or infused.
I believe in forensic righteousness, yeah. “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus;” “To the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness;” and so forth from there.
I’ll leave the conversation here, since the scope of it is beyond this original post, though of course I welcome any further response. Thanks for the dialog.
My pleasure – thank you, as well! It’s always good to get a better understanding of how “the other side” thinks.
Hello Irked and Jordan,
I’m following your posts. Irked posits that the death of David’s son is not punishment but is a lesson. In what sense is it a lesson? At 2 Samuel 12:6 Nathan says that [David]… 6“He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.” It goes on to suggest that the restitution is because of the effects, the consequence, the influence of David’s sin. I just don’t understand how/why you see this as some sort of neutral lesson.
If only a lesson, it is certainly a painful one.
Hi margo,
In what sense is it a lesson? At 2 Samuel 12:6 Nathan says that [David]… 6“He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.”
Small correction: that’s actually David speaking to Nathan, not vice-versa. David proposes a just punishment; that doesn’t establish that God does indeed visit on him the punishment he would apply to another.
It goes on to suggest that the restitution is because of the effects, the consequence, the influence of David’s sin.
It certainly is because of David’s sin. The question is, is it a moral balance to David’s sin (or to some temporal part of David’s sin?), or is this about something other than justice?
I just don’t understand how/why you see this as some sort of neutral lesson.
If only a lesson, it is certainly a painful one.
I’m not sure I’d describe it as “neutral.” The Lord is genuinely angry at David – I’m just not persuaded that the action here is about scale-balancing.
It is certainly a painful lesson; God grant it is not one we ever need.
Hi Irked,
Thank you for the correction! Yes, David says that the man who does wrong should make restitution, so Nathan agrees, as he says in 2 Samuel 12: 14-15. .
Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
So it is as David intuits, as God ordains, and as Nathan foretells. David has sinned has (let us say) “merited a punishing lesson.” Whether it succeeds in “balancing” God’s scales no one has any way of knowing. Is that what is at issue in a discussion of purgatory? It seems as if the issue is rather whether God applies a “punishing lesson” to our immortal souls, here and/or hereafter.
Hi margo,
Is that what is at issue in a discussion of purgatory?
It’s a big part of it, yes. As Jordan notes, we have incompatible views of how justification works; under a view of justification that says Christ bears all the penalties for our sins, it doesn’t make sense to say that there’s some question of paying for remaining sin. It’s all been paid!
But at that point, it also doesn’t make sense to talk about people dying with excess merit that can be stored up and distributed, because none of us do: we all die infinitely far in debt, with the only reason we’re counted as righteous the fact that Christ is our righteousness. And that has knock-on effects for some other Catholic doctrines, as I understand them.
So… yes! It makes a big difference, because some of the purposes Purgatory is meant to accomplish are (in a Protestant theology) already done. The biggest problem, though, is still that we don’t see the positive reason for belief in it.
Hi Irked,
I always find something interesting in your posts. Your last to me has, “…it also doesn’t make sense to talk about people dying with excess merit that can be stored up and distributed, because none of us do: we all die infinitely far in debt,…”
I agree. I’m curious why you made the statement. Was it to refute someone’s claim that people die with excess merit which is stored and distributed?
Here’s a post which addresses the Catholic idea of ‘treasury of merit’ something similar; that merit is due to and rightfully belongs to Christ who shares it with His friends through His grace.
http://www.catholicvoyager.com/2012/05/what-is-treasury-of-merit.html.
Hi margo,
No, I’m not arguing with anyone. I’m just trying to answer your question: the Protestant understanding of justification is incompatible with, say, the perspective laid out here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/: “Merit cannot be transferred, but meritorious acts can make satisfaction for another, by giving to God a gift of greater value than what was taken by the sin… it is also the way the meritorious acts of the saints can make satisfaction for others’ debt of temporal punishment.”
That’s not a debate I’m interested in having right now; I was just trying for a brief answer, and if brevity came at the cost of precision, I apologize.
Joe,
thank you for these points. All of them are worth pondering. From personal experience, it seems that the idea of Purgatory is more than just distasteful to Protestant; an old friend said that he must believe that “once saved always saved”, because the alternative is frightening. Anecdotic experience, of course, but still indicative.
Regarding points 6 and 7, Protestants are quick to dismiss the numerous NT passages that directly echo the Deuterocanonicals in general and the books of Maccabees in particular. On this topic, do you know how or why Jewish leaders could decide that the books of Maccabees were not canonical, if one of their main holiday (Hanukkah, or the Festival of Light) is directly derived from it?
Regarding #.8, it is also worth noticing that:
a) in 2 Timothy 4:19, Onesiphorus’ household is also quoted, but again not himself
b) all references to him are in the past
c) mercy for him is asked not in the present (as it is for his family), but in the day of Judgement.
The simplest alternative reading here is that Onesiphorus is alive, but not currently either with Paul or in Ephesus. He clearly travels, given that he’s interacted with Paul in several places; maybe he’s on the road, and maybe he’s in prison, but either way Timothy can’t greet him. Cf., say, “the household of Stephanas” in 1 Corinthians 1; we know Stephanas isn’t dead, because he’s mentioned in chapter 16, but the terminology is basically identical.
You could read it as prayers for the dead, to be sure, but (with apologies to Plummer) there’s nothing to particularly recommend that reading over another unless we take death as the most likely cause for absence.
Irked,
“The simplest alternative reading…“ = correct, just an alternative, not the most probable.
Irked,
“…the household of Stephanas” in 1 Corinthians 1…” = different context. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians, as you point out, Stephanas is personally mentioned, at least at the end of the chapter; in 2 Timothy, Onesiphorus is personally absent from both citations.
Finally, Protestant scholars also support the hypothesis that Onesiphorus was already dead when at the time of 2 Timothy (see A. T. Robertson, or Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, for example), although they have to recourse to unusual explanations to justify it.
Hi LLC,
As always, we can point to scholars on all sides of an issue. My point is just that one can refer to a man’s household without the man himself being dead. I’ll certainly agree that death is a possible explanation for absence; I just don’t see that it’s the clear strongest candidate.
Is this the strongest scriptural evidence for Purgatory?
Irked,
“My point is just that one can refer to a man’s household without the man himself being dead” = and my point is that, scripturally, death is the most plausible interpretation.
“Is this the strongest scriptural evidence for Purgatory?” = Two objections: The Catholic Church doesn’t use just one verse to support Her teachings. There are many others: Isaiah 4:4, 2 Maccabees 12:44-45, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinthians 3:15 (which echoes Psalm 66:12), Revelation 21:27 among them, all supporting it. Secondly, the Catholic Church has the support of Sacred Tradition, and is not limited by a mutilated version of Scriptures.
Hi LLC,
and my point is that, scripturally, death is the most plausible interpretation.
Okay! I don’t know how we’d even determine that.
Two objections: The Catholic Church doesn’t use just one verse to support Her teachings. There are many others: Isaiah 4:4, 2 Maccabees 12:44-45, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinthians 3:15 (which echoes Psalm 66:12), Revelation 21:27 among them, all supporting it.
I’d be happy to talk about 1 Corinthians 3, as evidenced.
Secondly, the Catholic Church has the support of Sacred Tradition, and is not limited by a mutilated version of Scriptures.
That’s fair, but if the primary grounding for Purgatory is Catholic tradition rather than Scripture, surely that’s the major reason more Protestants don’t accept the doctrine, not whether they find suffering distasteful.
Irked,
“Okay! I don’t know how we’d even determine that” = I did; please see my posts again.
“I’d be happy to talk about 1 Corinthians 3” = Please do.
“but if the primary grounding for Purgatory is Catholic tradition rather than Scripture” = Never said that. Instead, after reporting quite few verses all supporting the idea of Purgatory, I added that the Catholic Church has also the support of Sacred Tradition.
Hi LLC,
I did; please see my posts again.
I see them. Nothing here particularly suggests death over absence.
“I’d be happy to talk about 1 Corinthians 3” = Please do.
In fact, I already have; that was my first post in this thread. So far, no one’s challenged that explanation of the passage, and yet it’s an explanation clearly disconnected from Purgatory.
Irked,
“Nothing here particularly suggests death over absence” = your choice. This is what Free Will is all about.
“So far, no one’s challenged that explanation of the passage, and yet it’s an explanation clearly disconnected from Purgatory” = not really. All you have done is showing that in 1 Corinthians 3:15-18, Paul’s point is that leaders don’t matter, which is only part of his message. In the Corinthians epistles, Paul is expressing frustration because in Corinth his Hebrew teaching style was less appreciated than the more eloquent and refined Hellenistic oratory, which is a situation, interestingly enough, all too similar to what often happens in Protestant and ND Churches, where the worship and message style sometimes trump the content.
Also, a comment to your side note about Peter (Cephas) been called out. Actually, Apollos is called out more times, but you prefer to focus on Peter. Secondly, not every scholar identifies this Cephas with the head of the Apostles.
Anyways, Paul, and rightly so, says that leaders don’t matter, only the message does. And he continues saying that leaders don’t matter because ultimately God will reveal their (and everyone’s) work “…with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work”. This is an interesting construction metaphor: we can almost see the builder standing inside a burning building he or she has built. If the building was well build, it will withstand the fire. If not, it will crumble, and the builder will “…suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames”, which again is easy to visualize. If, as you are saying, Purgatory does not exist, how can the builder “yet be saved”? At the judgement, if there are only 2 options (either the building – our works, which incidentally is another blow to “Sola Fidae”- collapses, or it stands), the builder should receive either punishment or reward. Instead Paul suggests a third option, which is “…even though only as one escaping through the flames”. Incidentally, fire here is a metaphor, and doesn’t necessarily mean that in Purgatory there are flames. It simply indicates, as in other Scriptures, judgment, sometimes leading to condemnation, sometimes to purification.
Therefore, as you can see, 1 Corinthians 3:15-18 integrates consistently with other verses supporting the teaching of Purgatory.
Hi LLC,
not really. All you have done is showing that in 1 Corinthians 3:15-18, Paul’s point is that leaders don’t matter, which is only part of his message.
That was not the end of my explanation of the passage, no. Indeed, I wouldn’t even agree with it; that’s what Paul says in other verses of 1 Corinthians, but it’s not his point in, say, 3:15-17.
In the Corinthians epistles, Paul is expressing frustration because in Corinth his Hebrew teaching style was less appreciated than the more eloquent and refined Hellenistic oratory
I would say that’s pretty reductive, and ignores that Paul condemns the people praising him as readily as he does those praising anyone else – as, for instance, in 3:4-7. “So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.”
Also, a comment to your side note about Peter (Cephas) been called out. Actually, Apollos is called out more times, but you prefer to focus on Peter.
When anyone argues to me that their denomination should have primacy because of its succession from Apollos, you may be assured I will critique them in the same way!
And he continues saying that leaders don’t matter because ultimately God will reveal their (and everyone’s) work
I notice the insertion of “and everyone’s” here. But Paul isn’t speaking of all work of all people; he’s talking specifically about those who build, i.e., those specific individuals who build the church, as he once did and as “someone else” is doing now. The context here is still applied to teachers; to make him speak of all Christians is to lose the theme of the entire chapter.
This is an interesting construction metaphor: we can almost see the builder standing inside a burning building he or she has built.
We can visualize that, to be sure, but the passage does not say it; the passage describes the works, and not the builder, in the flames.
If, as you are saying, Purgatory does not exist, how can the builder “yet be saved”?
Because the builder is still a Christian, in this case, and the Christian’s salvation is not based upon the quality of his works. He receives no eternal reward for those works, but his salvation is a matter apart from them.
the builder should receive either punishment or reward. Instead Paul suggests a third option, which is “…even though only as one escaping through the flames”.
I disagree with the fundamental framing here. For the Christian, there is no risk of punishment; he will either receive a reward for those works, or he will not. Christ has paid all the punishment already. The argument here – that the one who works poorly should be punished by God – is nowhere established in this passage.
But I’ll admit a confusion on this point: do you not believe, as per Trent, that Purgatory is punishment? How then do you argue it is a third way?
It simply indicates, as in other Scriptures, judgment, sometimes leading to condemnation, sometimes to purification.
Or, as in this case, fire is used to reveal. All of the verbs used here are about the flames showing something; the verb for the action of the fire is the same one that gives us “apocalypse”: revelation.
Therefore, as you can see, 1 Corinthians 3:15-18 integrates consistently with other verses supporting the teaching of Purgatory.
But again, we have a shift here: you say it integrates. That’s quite a different thing from saying it teaches Purgatory. There is no mention here of remitted debts; nothing of temporal punishment; nothing of a need to pay for sins; nothing of the sinful worker being barred from heaven until the completion of his debt; nothing of the work of the faithful on his behalf to lessen his sufferings. There’s nothing, in other words, on any of the distinctive properties Trent outlines for Purgatory. It’s surely insufficient to say that the passage does not contradict these; what is it that establishes them?
Irked,
Your response is quite disappointing. It seems as you just glazed over my post looking for quick points. From the get go, for example: “Indeed, I wouldn’t even agree with it; that’s what Paul says in other verses of 1 Corinthians, but it’s not his point in, say, 3:15-17”, while in my post I clearly said, “…which is only part of his message”; didn’t you see the “only part”? And it only goes downhill from here.
I will provide a comprehensive analysis of your writing when I have more time. For the moment, a note to your last paragraph: “But again, we have a shift here: you say it integrates. That’s quite a different thing from saying it teaches Purgatory” = in my post above, I clearly stated that “The Catholic Church doesn’t use just one verse to support Her teachings”. 1 Corinthians 3:15-18 integrates, meaning supports, is part of, corroborates, you pick the synonym, the doctrine of Purgatory. It is, again, very disappointing how you always (not just for this specific argument) burden the Catholic Church with the identification “the” verse that magically is supposed to explain, beyond any reasonable doubt, a specific doctrine. It doesn’t work that way, never did, and never will, on this side of Heaven.
Given your propensity for absolutes, then, which verse “establishes” (your word, not mine), “Sola Scriptura”? Pick one.
Chrysostom thinks Onesipherous was alive too, though there are even Protestant scholars who disagree with this as the statement does not make sense if he is alive. But the practice of praying for the dead does not hinge on that one text anyhow.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the reply there – I was unaware of Chrysostom’s position.
***
Hi LLC,
From the get go, for example: “Indeed, I wouldn’t even agree with it; that’s what Paul says in other verses of 1 Corinthians, but it’s not his point in, say, 3:15-17”, while in my post I clearly said, “…which is only part of his message”; didn’t you see the “only part”?
I certainly did. You said that my argument had been that Paul’s point in these verses is that leaders don’t matter – and that, in making my case, I had hit only part of Paul’s point. But, in fact, that was not the conclusion I drew from 15-17, and you did not address (or even accurately state) the conclusion I actually did draw. Hence my objection.
in my post above, I clearly stated that “The Catholic Church doesn’t use just one verse to support Her teachings”. 1 Corinthians 3:15-18 integrates, meaning supports, is part of, corroborates, you pick the synonym, the doctrine of Purgatory.
I would say it fails to contradict the doctrine of Purgatory: that it provides no commentary that either encourages or discourages that belief. From my reading of this chapter, we could as easily say that John 1:1, or Genesis 8, or the random passage of your choice “integrates with” the doctrine of Purgatory: the two have nothing to do with each other.
My objection is the conflation of “There’s no contradiction here” with “This is part of the support.” My challenge, from my first reply to Joe, has been, “What is the actual support that should cause a Protestant to believe in this doctrine?” You had indicated that on March 7 that this passage (among others) provided such support. If it in fact does not – if it only fails to contradict the doctrine – that what passages provide the actual support?
It is, again, very disappointing how you always (not just for this specific argument) burden the Catholic Church with the identification “the” verse that magically is supposed to explain, beyond any reasonable doubt, a specific doctrine.
My request is generally for consideration of one text at a time, not that a single text alone establish an entire doctrine. If we were debating the Trinity, I would point to different verses to establish the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and the unity of the three Persons in one God – but I would have passages that clearly established each of those facts.
But this passage fails to establish – it fails even to suggest! – any of the distinctives of Purgatory; it is not even about the proper topic. If the other passages in the list similarly fail to establish these distinctives, what does it matter whether they are one or twenty?
And if they do not so fail, then show me that! If we agree that this passage does not establish the distinctives, then great; where would you like to look next?
Given your propensity for absolutes, then, which verse “establishes” (your word, not mine), “Sola Scriptura”? Pick one.
I’ll be glad to talk about SS when it’s on topic some time, but I’m not interested in broadening to an entirely different topic while I have arguments still unaddressed on this one.
Craig,
“Chrysostom thinks Onesipherous was alive too” = although I don’t necessarily contest your suggestion (as you correctly state, “…the practice of praying for the dead does not hinge on that one text anyhow”, nor, I may add, by any one Bible Scholar’s interpretation), I can’t find any direct quote from St. John to support it. I only found (after a quick search, admittedly) a quote from Rev. E. B. Boggs’ “The American Church Review”, where Boggs says that “… Others – as Theodoret and Chrysostom – have thought that Onesiphorus was with St Paul in Rome…”, but again I found nothing in St. John’s writings to support it. St. John, in his “Homilies on First Corinthians”, seems instead to support the idea of praying for the dead: “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”.
Irked,
From your last post first:
“You said that my argument had been that Paul’s point in these verses is that leaders don’t matter – and that, in making my case, I had hit only part of Paul’s point” = incorrect, again. I never said that your argument was that Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians is only that leaders don’t matter, therefore you only understood part of Paul’s point. If anything, I confirmed with you that “leaders don’t matter “is only part of Paul’s point. Please do not read objections where there is none. If you need even more plain clarity, here it goes: I agree that, in 1 Corinthians, one of Paul’s point (or, his partial point, if you prefer) is that leaders don’t matter. And, incidentally, accuracy is in the eye of the reader.
“I would say it fails to contradict the doctrine of Purgatory…” = this is not my point, and it is, you allow me, a very naïve objection.
“From my reading of this chapter, we could as easily say that John 1:1, or Genesis 8, or the random passage of your choice “integrates with” the doctrine of Purgatory: the two have nothing to do with each other” = therefore, your reading of this specific chapter (1 Corinthians 3) is incorrect, given the myriads of Bible scholars that have used it to integrate, or support, or corroborates the doctrine of Purgatory. No serious scholar would use John 1:1, or Genesis 8, to this scope, and your futile attempt of ridicule is, you got it, futile.
“My objection is the conflation of “There’s no contradiction here” with “This is part of the support” = The first and only one in this post who made the claim that the Church said that 1 Corinthians doesn’t contradict Purgatory is you. You are the one conflating “There’s no contradiction here” with “This is part of the support”, not I or anyone else in this blog.
“If it in fact does not – if it only fails to contradict the doctrine – that what passages provide the actual support?” = not my point, again, and incorrect, as myriad of Bible scholars can attest.
“If we were debating the Trinity, I would point to different verses to establish the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and the unity of the three Persons in one God – but I would have passages that clearly established each of those facts” = interesting how in this case you use “verses” and “passages”, not “a verse” and “a passage”. And, pardon the pun, John 1:1 actually supports part of the doctrine of the Trinity, not simply “doesn’t contradict it” …
“But this passage fails to establish – it fails even to suggest! – any of the distinctives of Purgatory; it is not even about the proper topic” = third time is a charm, perhaps. Not according to the myriad, etc etc.
I will response to your longer, and similarly disappointing, first post later.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/saints/teachings-of-church-fathers/purgatory
Here is St. John Chrysostom without ambiguity (unlike the Onesiphorus context) on praying for the dead. There is a bit of an expansion to what LLC offered:
“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.” St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on 1 Corinthians” c. 392 A.D.
“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 extant 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.” St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on Philippians” c. 402 A.D.
Also, there are prayers for the dead (with names of those dead persons) inscribed on the walls of the catacombs. So it seems it was a practice of those first Christians.
Hi LLC,
incorrect, again. I never said that your argument was that Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians is only that leaders don’t matter, therefore you only understood part of Paul’s point.
In fact, you said almost precisely that: “All you have done is showing that in 1 Corinthians 3:15-18, Paul’s point is that leaders don’t matter, which is only part of his message.” While I argued for that context for the chapter as a whole, that is not what I had shown in those particular verses; it is assuredly not all I had done. You did not (and you still do not) address the argument I do make from these verses!
“I would say it fails to contradict the doctrine of Purgatory…” = this is not my point, and it is, you allow me, a very naïve objection.
On the contrary, it’s the core objection: if it is not demonstrated that the passage positively establishes any of the defining properties of Purgatory, then it does not answer my original question.
therefore, your reading of this specific chapter (1 Corinthians 3) is incorrect, given the myriads of Bible scholars that have used it to integrate, or support, or corroborates the doctrine of Purgatory.
As long as we’re making allowances, allow me to be facetious: I was unaware that, if multiple Bible scholars think a thing is true, while multiple others think it is untrue, this automatically makes the first side correct. I had been under the impression that one must actually show why one side or the other is mistaken.
interesting how in this case you use “verses” and “passages”, not “a verse” and “a passage”.
I do, yes. I do not, contrary to your claim, require a single verse or passage to establish all parts of a doctrine. That’s my point.
But Scripture has to establish them, and argument has to be made for them from Scripture. If you need multiple verses to establish your point, let’s look at them; all I’m asking is that we look at them one at a time, so we don’t swamp the conversation by going too broad too quickly.
And, pardon the pun, John 1:1 actually supports part of the doctrine of the Trinity, not simply “doesn’t contradict it”
Yes, that’s true. That’s the difference between the two.
third time is a charm, perhaps. Not according to the myriad, etc etc.
This is not an argument. It’s simply the assertion that, because an opposing argument was made by someone, somewhere, I must be wrong.
Would it be sufficient as a rebuttal of Purgatory for me to reply, “Not according to the myriad Protestant scholars?” I assume not, but if it’s that easy…
Irked,
“In fact, you said almost precisely that…” = Not. This is only what you want to understand.
“On the contrary, it’s the core objection: if it is not demonstrated that the passage positively establishes any of the defining properties of Purgatory, then it does not answer my original question” = as already shown, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is a strong evidence that Christians’ actions will be judged and, if not passing the test of fire, will be destroyed, and they (Christians) will still be saved but “will suffer loss”, “detrimentum” in Latin, or “harm”. Note that here the builder, not the building, will be harmed. Therefore, your statement that in 1 Corinthians “There is […] nothing of temporal punishment; nothing of a need to pay for sins; nothing of the sinful worker being barred from heaven until the completion of his debt […]” is incorrect.
“…allow me to be facetious…” = you may be as facetious as you want, but your opinion that “But this passage fails to establish – it fails even to suggest! – any of the distinctives of Purgatory” is contradicted by the myriads of Bible scholars that have seen in it what you insofar have failed, or chosen, to. Therefore, it’s not the passage, it’s your interpretation of it.
“But Scripture has to establish them, and argument has to be made for them from Scripture” = this, only from a Protestant point of view. As already said, the Catholic Church has also the support of Sacred Tradition and 2 millennia of Church history.
“This is not an argument. It’s simply the assertion that, because an opposing argument was made by someone, somewhere, I must be wrong” = Actually, since your absolutes are also in dispute here, invoking precedents is perfectly legitimate and appropriate.
Hi LLC,
as already shown, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is a strong evidence that Christians’ actions will be judged and, if not passing the test of fire, will be destroyed
Unless I’m overlooking it, I don’t think you’ve responded to either my initial presentation of 1 Corinthians 3 or my response to your presentation; I’ll point to those posts for my answer here.
and they (Christians) will still be saved but “will suffer loss”, “detrimentum” in Latin, or “harm”.
I don’t see that the Latin translation matters, except as a means of explaining how bad theology might have emerged from a poor translation. The Greek verb is zēmióō, which has “lose” or “forfeit” as common interpretations. (This is the word used in, for instance, “What does it profit a man if he gains the world but forfeits his soul?” The sense there is clearly not “harm” his soul.) Both of those fit my reading, and the description Paul makes: the unworthy builder loses all his works, which are burnt up and revealed as nothing but straw.
So contra your interpretation…
Note that here the builder, not the building, will be harmed.
… there’s no description anywhere here of the builder himself being hurt. Rather, the parallel is clear: one gains, and one loses, as the quality of their work is revealed.
Therefore, your statement that in 1 Corinthians “There is […] nothing of temporal punishment; nothing of a need to pay for sins; nothing of the sinful worker being barred from heaven until the completion of his debt […]” is incorrect.
Is anything here described as payment? As punishment? As preventing his access to heaven? Or is there just a description of the unworthy teacher losing the reward that the worthy teacher has?
you may be as facetious as you want, but your opinion that “But this passage fails to establish – it fails even to suggest! – any of the distinctives of Purgatory” is contradicted by the myriads of Bible scholars that have seen in it what you insofar have failed, or chosen, to. Therefore, it’s not the passage, it’s your interpretation of it.
“Bible scholars disagree with you, so you’re wrong” is not an argument. Bible scholars disagree with both of our positions, because Bible scholars disagree.
this, only from a Protestant point of view.
Yes. My thesis from the beginning is that there is no reason for the Protestant to accept this doctrine – that it is not (as Joe suggests in his original post) that we are unwilling to admit the possibility of further suffering, but merely that we see no good cause to believe it. I lay that out in the first paragraph of my first post: “I don’t think it’s really fair to the Protestant position to say we reject the belief because ‘it’s very tempting’; we reject it because it’s lacking evidence.”
That the Catholic has good reason for accepting the doctrine is not in question – but then, that wasn’t Joe’s critique.
Irked,
“The Greek verb is zēmióō, which has “lose” or “forfeit” as common interpretations” = from Bible Hub: “Short Definition: I inflict loss upon, punish; Definition: I inflict loss (damage) upon, fine, punish, sometimes with the acc. of the penalty, even when the verb is passive”.
From Thayer’s Definition: “to affect with damage, do damage to, to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”.
“What does it profit a man if he gains the world but forfeits his soul?” = it seems that you are separating the builder (man) from his soul. Technically, the soul is not ours to gain or lose. “The sense there is clearly not “harm” his soul” = actually, the sense here is that the soul is harmed. Paul clearly states that as the substandard building burns to ashes, the builder will suffer harm.
“there’s no description anywhere here of the builder himself being hurt. Rather, the parallel is clear: one gains, and one loses, as the quality of their work is revealed” = see above.
“Is anything here described as payment? As punishment? As preventing his access to heaven? Or is there just a description of the unworthy teacher losing the reward that the worthy teacher has?” = see above translations of zēmióō. There are few examples of this verb used in Classics with the meaning of “being fined”, “paying a fine”, and it’s consistent with the costume of not repaying the builder for the materials used in a substandard, collapsed building, and to punish him, physically and/or financially.
“Bible scholars disagree with you, so you’re wrong” is not an argument” = actually, it’s a powerful argument that your interpretation has been already taken into consideration and deemed not acceptable.
“My thesis from the beginning… we reject it because it’s lacking evidence” = As shown, the evidences are in the text, here and elsewhere.
Hi LLC,
from Bible Hub: “Short Definition: I inflict loss upon, punish; Definition: I inflict loss (damage) upon, fine, punish, sometimes with the acc. of the penalty, even when the verb is passive”.
From Thayer’s Definition: “to affect with damage, do damage to, to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”.
…
actually, it’s [i.e., Bible scholars disagreeing with you is] a powerful argument that your interpretation has been already taken into consideration and deemed not acceptable.
So let’s cut to the chase here. Also from Bible Hub, from Strong’s: “be cast away; suffer loss;” from the NASB, “forfeit, forfeits, suffer loss, suffered the loss.”
If you want to appeal to Bible scholars, let’s appeal to Bible scholars. Because 1 Corinthians 3:15 universally renders as “loss,” and not “punishment,” in every major translation I see: the NIV, the KJV, the NASB, the Catholic RSV and NRSV, etc. What does that say for your personal rendering of the word as “punish” in this passage? Which of us is standing with scholarly consensus on that point?
it seems that you are separating the builder (man) from his soul.
No, I’m referencing souls in an entirely different passage, Matthew 16, where the word zēmióō is (once more) universally rendered “forfeit” or “lose,” not “harm” or “punish.” Again, the NIV, the KJV, the NASB, the Catholic RSV and NRSV – they’re all consistent on this point. “The builder” isn’t in Matthew 16 at all; I made no comment regarding his soul.
Technically, the soul is not ours to gain or lose.
The words are Matthew’s – and Christ’s – not mine. You would have to take it up with them.
“The sense there is clearly not “harm” his soul” = actually, the sense here is that the soul is harmed.
Again, it sounds like you are applying my words to the wrong passage. I said that in Matthew 16, the sense is clearly not “harm,” which establishes that zēmióō can be used in the sense of “loss.” Are you replying with regard to that passage, or to 1 Corinthians?
Paul clearly states that as the substandard building burns to ashes, the builder will suffer harm.
He factually does not say this, no. He says the builder will suffer zēmióō, which has other common renderings; as I’ve just demonstrated, the translators of the major English Bibles, Protestant and Catholic, have universally favored those other renderings in this passage.
and it’s consistent with the costume of not repaying the builder for the materials used in a substandard, collapsed building, and to punish him, physically and/or financially.
Sure, we can suggest all manner of extra claims “consistent” with a passage. They still don’t come from Scripture.
Irked,
“So let’s cut to the chase here” = already did. The majority of the translation on Bible Hub and elsewhere clearly carry a sense of personal damage, either physical or financial; from Strong, “to sustain damage, to receive injury”, and “suffer loss” only as third option.
“What does that say for your personal rendering of the word as “punish” in this passage? Which of us is standing with scholarly consensus on that point?” = first, it’s not mine, as already shown. Secondly, the builder is punished, as Paul says, because he (the builder) is not receiving his reward, which is indeed a punishment; furthermore, as already indicated, it was custom that the substandard builder would also be punished, either physically or financially, often both, which is consistent with the meaning of zēmióō as used here. A translation always carries an interpretation that can’t be separated from the historical and cultural context. Furthermore, if you really want to split hair, “suffer loss” is a punishment in the financial sense.
“They still don’t come from Scripture” = actually, they do.
LLC,
The majority of the translation on Bible Hub and elsewhere clearly carry a sense of personal damage, either physical or financial; from Strong, “to sustain damage, to receive injury”, and “suffer loss” only as third option.
Name me an English translation that renders 1 Corinthians 3:15 in this way.
first, it’s not mine, as already shown.
Okay. What other translator renders the word in the way you do, in this passage?
Secondly, the builder is punished, as Paul says, because he (the builder) is not receiving his reward, which is indeed a punishment
There’s a world of difference between “I am not rewarded for this” and “I am punished for this.”
furthermore, as already indicated, it was custom that the substandard builder would also be punished, either physically or financially, often both, which is consistent with the meaning of zēmióō as used here. A translation always carries an interpretation that can’t be separated from the historical and cultural context.
There is also a world of difference between understanding context, on the one hand, and basing an entire system of theological claims off implications the author does not make, on the other. Every illustration ever made goes weird places when stretched beyond the bounds of the application its author makes, and Paul does not make the application you’re asking for here.
Irked,
“Name me an English translation that renders 1 Corinthians 3:15 in this way” = since you are asking nicely, the Expanded Bible, for example, translates it as “15 But if the ·building [L work] is burned up, the builder will ·suffer loss [or be fined; or be punished]. “; the Wycliffe Bible (you may be familiar with this one) translates it as “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer harm [If any man’s work shall burn, he shall suffer impairing]”. Furthermore, if you read the footnotes for 1 Corinthians 3:15, even the ones translated as “suffer loss” expand the notion to being fined, suffer harm, being punished. Finally, if you consider other languages, you’ll find that Romance Languages tend to translate zēmióō closer to the Latin Detrimentum, with clear indication of harm (either physical or financial or both) suffered by the builder.
“There’s a world of difference between “I am not rewarded for this” and “I am punished for this.” = not really. As any contractor will tell you, if they produce a substandard job, they are punished by not getting paid in the first place, and fined either directly or by have to rebuild what they didn’t do correctly in the first place, thus losing money.
“There is also a world of difference between understanding context, on the one hand, and basing an entire system of theological claims off implications the author does not make, on the other” = the idea here is simply that a substandard building will not stand the test of fire, and its builder doesn’t get paid and is fined, which is the partial aspect of the doctrine of Purgatory (not “an entire system of theological claims”) Paul is clearly expressing here.
Hi LLC,
since you are asking nicely, the Expanded Bible, for example, translates it as “15 But if the ·building [L work] is burned up, the builder will ·suffer loss [or be fined; or be punished]. “
Okay. So it’s presented as an alternative rendering of the word, but not the primary interpretation for the verse.
the Wycliffe Bible (you may be familiar with this one)
I am. In particular, I’m familiar with the fact that the Wycliffe Bible worked primarily off the Vulgate, and not the original language documents – which means, sure enough, it preserves Jerome’s mistranslations.
I think that makes my point: modern translations, Protestant and Catholic, recognize that the Vulgate was not making the best or most likely rendering here. According to a recent interlocutor of mine, if the consensus of Bible scholars disagree with you on this point, you’re mistaken – right?
not really. As any contractor will tell you, if they produce a substandard job, they are punished by not getting paid in the first place, and fined either directly or by have to rebuild what they didn’t do correctly in the first place, thus losing money.
Right, that’s my point: not getting rewarded, and getting punished, are two separate things. Paul does not describe the latter here.
the idea here is simply that a substandard building will not stand the test of fire, and its builder doesn’t get paid and is fined, which is the partial aspect of the doctrine of Purgatory (not “an entire system of theological claims”) Paul is clearly expressing here.
Except, again, that Paul does not express the sentiment “and is fined”; there are no fines in this passage. That has to be read into it.
I think we’re going around in circles at this point, so I’ll bow out with that.
Irked,
“I think that makes my point: modern translations, Protestant and Catholic, recognize that the Vulgate was not making the best or most likely rendering here” = translating “zēmióō” as “suffer loss” doesn’t mean “recognize that the Vulgate was not making the best or most likely rendering”. Can you please cite any study supporting your claim? This situation is very similar to “Kecharitomene”, where the common translation “Full of Grace” doesn’t fully render the original meaning.
“According to a recent interlocutor of mine, if the consensus of Bible scholars disagree with you on this point, you’re mistaken – right?” = actually, here there is no “consensus” on the interpretation, simply on the linear translation. As already reported, the footnotes clearly indicate, even with the simple (and reductive) rendition “suffer loss”, that punishment is to be understood as part of Paul’s message and meaning.
“I think we’re going around in circles at this point, so I’ll bow out with that” = actually, I go straight to the point, like Paul. But if you don’t have anything else to say, I’ll leave at this, until next time.
Sacred tradition is something which one (with minimal reflection and reason) ought not easily discount. By tradition we mean sacred history. What’s the aphorism? Those without it [are condemned!] to repeat it. [To their peril, may I add.]
History (tradition) includes what we’ve here discussed many times, with a partial consideration below:
the values of Western civilization with regard to inhering dignity of all men and charity toward all;
the lives of saints;
the sacred writings and copyings of those handed down through the ages;
the development of Christian doctrine;
education; etc.,
the sacred tradition of the one church and its development of Scripture so that ALL Christians today may access the Word of God in material (if not in spiritual) format. Then there is our spiritual tradition, much of which Protestantism discards and to which Joe alludes in his article. Among these spiritual traditions are ascetical and mystical theology–formulated and practiced through the ages by holy people and by those who wish to become so.
Finally, regarding REASON alone. Is it not natural that some people are better disciplined and better prayers than others? Yet if we are all loved by God, why does God grant ‘unequal’ gifts and sufferings? Why are we different? Why would God show more or less mercy to some than to others? How account for passive (not under our control) suffering which we all experience in differing degree? Why is one person afflicted with unremitting pain and another granted ease throughout his life? How account for that?
If God forgives and grants mercy on the basis of baptism and profession of faith, why did he not simply forgive the progeny of Adam and Eve and stop with us after the resurrection of Christ? Why does He continue to require a lifetime on earth from us Christians? This is justice and mercy which we have all received and to which we all will be called to account. Thank God for purgatory. Thank God for Sacred Tradition.
Irked made good points here. The Orthodox denial is similar–the teaching of the scriptures nor ancient tradition bear it out so they cannot affirm what the fathers did not teach. This is simplistic of course but i am giving the three sentence treatment of the subject.
The Orthodox Church may deny purgatory, that is true. But since it still advocates to pray for the dead, it means it has to have some effect, otherwise the prayer would be useless.
So trough masses and prayers and koliva, you can get the damned out of hell. I’m not sure if they will only enter heaven at the last judgment, or meanwhile, but outside of that, the idea is the same.
Well the koliva does not get anyone out, it is not an offering in that sense. The eucharist is offered for the dead including canonized saints. The orthodox view is thay prayer helps everyone. Ironically st Onesipherous died a martyr and paul prays for God to have mercy for Him. The easyern approach is less methodical and pragmatic when compared to the west, which is why the west devised a doctrine or purgatory, treasury of merits, and firm answers as to what the prayers do and the Orthodox just know that they help and otherwise do not make very firm claims. If i am understanding correctly, Some westernized Greeks even deny prayers get the damned out of hell or they are agnostic on the issue. orthodoxy is very diverse on things not concise in tradition. Reading Al’s response and some recent rc apologetics it appears the west is getting more comfortable with explaining how western ideas neet an eastern mold. It is not yet a 2 way street.
The RCC does not teach that prayers help anyone out of hell; once there, there is no escape. Else this would be inconsistency in God’s justice, a contradiction. God could certainly grant the grace of our intercessory prayer whenever and to whomsoever He may. So it seems plausible (I don’t know if this is theologically so…) that our prayer today could perhaps have helped to convert someone (in the past) who was ‘on the way’ to hell. What do you think?
Margo,
Yes, the Orthodox teaching is very different than the RC one in this regard. My Bishop was posed the question during a informal “beer and the bible” held at my priest’s house. It is possible that I misunderstood him or simply am too new in Orthodoxy to really explain properly what I heard, but he was asked a question about toll houses and he essentially responded he didn’t believe in them “because I don’t see it in the Bible.” I thought that was a funny response. He did get into more detail saying that the dead do not exist in time and God is outside of time, so our prayers affect the dead irrespective of time. So maybe it affects them before they die (because there is no repentance after death according to St Clement of Rome) or has some other effect on those after they die (exactly what we do not know). My priest explained it to me that ultimately those who accept toll houses (provided that they admit they are not literal) and those who reject them are ultimately voicing the same opinion, just coming at it from different angles.
In short, I think the Roman view of Purgatory is roughly similar, though the merit-based paradigm inherited to its rigid parameters (as Purgatory is more thoroughly dogmatized than any Orthodox view of what happens after death) is very different from Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, I think if we are charitable to each others views and intellectual traditions, we would see we are much more similar than we think on this subject.
God bless,
Craig
Joe:
The concept of purgatory would be much easier for me to accept if every man and woman there was really required to work their own way free to release from sin.
But Catholicism’s long history of providing an express exit for those who have lots of praying friends and family back here on earth (and in the less savory past, Tetzel’s cash box) casts doubt on the value of purgatory as explained by you.
An argument could be made that a man is made by the company he keeps. There is good reason that our parents encouraged us, as teens, to choose good friends; if we did not, perhaps our parents, to the extent that their advice and control were accepted, would not allow us to spend time with friends who exerted negative influence over us.
So why should our good friends cease their good wishes for us after we’ve passed? Has Jesus ever warned us to stop praying for each other? Did He not say to, “pray ceaselessly”? Pray tell me, Mr. Ruiz, why would you want to stop? YOU are the only person describing Purgatory as an express exit! No one with any whit theological wisdom would claim it to be so. It is purportedly extremely painful. Read about it!
“YOU are the only person describing Purgatory as an express exit! ”
I did not say that. What I did intend to say is that when John spends 20,000 years in purgatory, and an equivalent sinner Jim spends 700 years because his friends and family are praying for him, the whole point of purgatory being where each person bears the burden of clearing himself from sin is negated. Jim is the one who gets to take the express exit.
OK, Mr. Ruiz. Clarification is good, and I appreciate your help in setting me straight.
So let me ask: Are you married and do you ask your wife or children to help you with jobs which you want done around the house? Or you have helped your mother and father with chores which perhaps you didn’t think needed doing, Yes? Why should the spiritual realm be different?
Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus carry his cross. Jesus asked his friends Peter, James, and John to pray with Him at the Garden of Gethsemene. The good thief asked Jesus to take him into Paradise. We ask God for help, and He asks us to be obedient and to be perfect, and He asks us to accomplish his will–that we be perfect and that we make disciples of all nations. Jesus called his disciples and commissioned them to go forth to teach, to preach, to carry forth and carry on His message. Why should we stop doing that upon someone’s death? God chose friends to help Him in His work. We still talk to Jesus, and He is no longer physically present in a material body on earth.
Indeed, the soul is immortal, and God’s time is not our time, so 20,000 years to one soul in purgatory is not comparable to another soul’s 700 years. Add to this God’s mercy and God’s justice. What we think a person deserves is not what God thinks; so scripture says, “My ways are not your ways.”
Jesus prayed for Lazarus after Lazarus had “died,” so why ought we not pray for our deceased friends to help them regain fullness of spiritual life?
How do we measure goodness, virtue, or “perfection”? We assume that only God can achieve ultimate perfection. He tells us to “Be perfect, as the Father is perfect.” He commanded Moses to remove his shoes before approaching Him in the burning bush. He punished David for his adultery and murder. He put Adam and Eve out of Paradise even though He helped clothe their nakedness (He forgave their guilt). We pray for our friends that God may apply the infinite merits of His Son to our friends who may not have achieved perfection before their death. We pray without ceasing so that our friends become God’s friends. We must be perfect in order to enjoy the beatific vision.
P.S.: After the fall, Genesis describes God placing angels holding fire at the gates of Paradise. This is conceivably the “fire” of scripture denoting purgatory where one is cleansed and purified..
We need to also remember that the 700 years and 20,000 years in Purgatory, mentioned above, is A LOT less than the 20,000 trillion years in the eternal fires of Hell… and those trillions of years are just the very beginning of the sufferings (which NEVER end).
So, any time in Purgatory is a very great gift from God, relative to an eternity in Hell.
Hi Al,
YES!
Anything is better than an eternity in hell….So it appears as if we find fault with Purgatory at the risk of our eternal happiness. Or some believe their goodness is as great as the good Lord’s already. If that is the case, I wonder why we see no signs, no miracles….Repeatedly our Lord talks about purification, penance, repentance, and perfection. Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start to scratch one’s head and wonder….
Hi Vicq & Irked,
You guys actually do believe in Purgatory. You just don’t call it that (or you don’t want to admit it).
Unless, of course, you expect to be completely free of any desire to commit sins at the moment of your death. I’ll admit, unfortunately if I died right now, I haven’t achieved that goal. Will our concupiscence be completely gone?
So you believe we’ll all be perfect in heaven, but not perfect a second before death. That process of ridding our souls of the imperfection (desire for sin, not sin) is what Catholics call Purgatory. What do you call it?
Peace,
Joe
C’mon, Joe. Clearly if we redefine the word – “This world is Purgatory, so you believe in Purgatory!” – the meaning changes. But I cited Trent upthread, and Trent clearly requires a payment of debt for sins that continues after death; if your definition of Purgatory doesn’t include that, it doesn’t satisfy Trent, and it isn’t the thing I (or, I presume, Blog Joe) am talking about.
Hi Irked,
I didn’t say this world is purgatory. Where did you get that idea?
I said at least a part of the idea of purgatory is the process by which our desire to sin is removed before coming into the perfect heavenly realm.
Most of us have the desire to sin at death.
None of us will have it in heaven.
Therefore there’s a process that must occur to accomplish that. Might be the very realization of just how glorious and wonderful our Lord is and how many times we selfishly turned our backs on Him. I imagine that will be a very painful and humbling and cleansing experience.
Not sure why that’s a problem to accept.
Peace,
Joe
Hi Joe,
Not sure why that’s a problem to accept.
Again, this is because the definition of Purgatory you’re asking me to accept is less than the definition Trent is asking me to accept.
Imagine I said to a Muslim, “Look, I believe Jesus was a holy man from God; why is that so hard for you to believe?” – well, his perfectly appropriate response is, “But that’s not all you’re asking me to believe, and it’s unfair for you to present only the part in this way.” If you restrict the meaning of “I believe in Purgatory” to simply “I believe in a process of sanctification,” then of course there’s no argument – but we both know that’s not sufficient to satisfy Trent.
If Purgatory exists as you describe it, then I contend that every person will have to fully go through the struggle of perfecting his individual soul. No one gets any special consideration.
It’s not the concept of Purgatory that bothers me nearly as much as do all the special deals that the Church offers by which family and friends can speed the process.
Someone who dies alone, poor, unmourned, and friendless bears the same unequal burden in Purgatory which he bore on earth. That does not sit well with me.
Maybe the one who dies ” unmourned, and friendless” should have sought to follow Jesus’ admonition when He taught:
“…make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails, they will welcome you into eternal homes.” (Luke 16:9)
Jesus is the one we need to listen to attentively so as to avoid so many miseries, both in this world, and the next. Somehow, He teaches here that by using money while we have time here on Earth, that is, for the charitable support of the poor and needy, that they in turn will remember and help you, or as Jesus says ‘welcome you’, into “eternal homes” in Heaven.
Incidentally, this also refutes the useless Protestant doctrine of ‘Faith alone’.
Al,
this is a great point. Thank you for bringing it up!
Not to quibble, but it’s possible someone could lack friends or people that like them because he/she is socially inadequate. Or has anxieties being around people. Or has had some unfortunate accidents or events to lead the person down a path that’s more reclusive than most.But such people could still have opportunities to be good in God’s eyes. Vicq Ruiz is assuming our time in purgatory hinges on how many people are praying for our souls. I don’t think that’s a good assumption. Only God knows each of us and what crosses each of us carry. And only God knows are just punishment. If this is the only reason to not believe in the Catholic teaching of purgatory, I think it’s a silly reason.
One reason we might someday need purgation, is if we let too many of our words ‘fall to the ground’, that is, to speak idle, evil, or useless words.
Jesus says:
” But I say unto you, that EVERY IDLE word that men shall speak, they shall RENDER AN ACCOUNT for it in THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT. For by thy words thou shalt be JUSTIFIED, and BY THY WORDS thou shalt be CONDEMNED. (Matt.12:36)
….something to consider for those who believe we are justified by
Faith A L O N E.
Vicq,
Perhaps many of us will need cleansing before we enter heaven. So be it. Sign me up.
As for the “special deals”, why not look at it from the communion of saints perspective. I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that a key element of our Christian faith is that we are all part of one body with Christ at the head, not just individuals in a one on one relationship with Jesus. Love is considering your neighbor more than you.
When the Church encourages us to pray for those who may be in Purgatory, its just a continuation of the love we should have for each other.
BTW, there are many, many prayers said specifically for the “alone, poor, unmourned and friendless” by devout Christians all over the world. I wouldn’t worry about God not being fair to someone who had fewer friends.
The Church does not teach that those who have more prayers said for them will have an easier time (or a “shorter” time) in Purgatory than those with less, as you suggest. The principle is that intercessory prayer by one can merit God’s favor toward others. For example, God honored Abraham’s request to spare Sodom for the sake of the few righteous in the city.
Peace,
Joe (not blog Joe)
Joe and Vicq,
The Eucharistic prayer of every single Mass includes prayer for those who have died. There we ask that the infinite merits of Christ’s sacrifice be applied to those suffering souls (in purgatory). The Catholic Church does not forget ANYONE. Were the body of Christ to do so, let it be anathema!
When you consider the two great commandments, much of our attachment to sin has to do with love or our neighbor. Love of neighbor is a two way street, so it makes sense that cleansing our imperfections in this regard includes active participation of our neighbor.
Those are two sentences to chew on.
Can you elaborate on the second sentence any?
At your particular judgment when you come face to face with where you fallen short and have no means of your own to make reparation, you become totally dependent on the mercy of God, both directly and through others. When the soul sees what others offer on their behalf, it most certainly contributes to healing what lacked in their own charity and bringing them in humble gratitude to the perfect love required to enter heaven. It in turn benefits the souls still on Earth that can still actively cooperate with God in healing the overall damage already done and so also bring them to the perfection of their own charity.
Thanks John. You’re a good catechist.
Who cannot understand that a ‘type of purgatory’ is described in the Gospel of Luke 12:46, by Jesus Himself, in this quote? :
“The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.”
What’s all the controversy about? Or, is it that we just want to ignore the eternal teachings of the ONE MASTER Jesus Christ Our Lord??
Surely the first sentence, above, refers to the death of a person, i.e.. “at the hour that he knoweth not”. And then the consequences that result from the ‘servant’ being either faithful and diligent concerning the will to his ‘lord’, or on the other hand, careless and negligent concerning his ‘lord’s’ desires. And, Jesus Himself teaches that there is punishment meted out; that is, relative to the degree of faithfulness in following His will; i.e., “beaten with many stripes” or “beaten with fewer stripes”.
Who cannot see that these stripes are given AFTER death….which came at an hour “he knoweth not”??
Catholics understand Our Lord Jesus Christ when He teaches these things. And consequently, they will probably receive the ‘greater stripes’ for not following their ‘lords’ will that they were aware of. But, Protestants obviously do not know ( due to their misunderstanding of Purgatory) the meaning of this teaching, and so they don’t clearly understand ‘their lord’ who teaches it. And so, consequently, they should receive ‘lesser stripes’. But since knowing (seeing)Jesus is to know (see) the Father, it is therefore one of the greatest blessing possible in this life to a person to “know the will of his lord’, and also a great poverty, to NOT know it. So, ultimately, Protestants are at a disadvantage for having a misunderstanding of what Jesus Christ’s teaches and desires in this life, which is probably due to the many anti-Christian doctrines(i.e.. the 5 solaes, and Tulip) that they adhere to. But, in the end it is the Lord who will judge us all, and very probably this will happen at a time and hour, as He says, “that we know not”. Therefore, it is wise to heed Jesus’ remedy that He provides to us when He admonishes:
“Pray always that you enter not into temptation”.
Keep and put into practice all of the words of Jesus and all should be well. Or, at least the stripes fewer.
“It’s true that He could just transform us instantaneously, and in a few rare cases, He seems to do just that.”
I say this tongue in cheek but it would be nice if Orthodox can make the same statement that always feeling obligated to somehow abrogate it in order to talk about the notion of human free will.
“and in a few rare cases”
St. Dismus, the ‘good thief’ seems to be one of these rare cases. And He is also a good case study for the existence and definition of Purgatory.
Dismas, although he was obviously not baptized, and probably deserved his punishment by the Romans for some significant crime, was still told by Jesus: “Today you will be with me in Paradise”.
So, if Jesus had not yet risen from the dead, still Jesus and Dismas were in ‘Paradise’ on that same day of their crucifixions; and that was two days before the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
So, if Dismas is in Paradise with Jesus, and Jesus then ‘descends to the dead’ wherein many were raised, maybe we might suitably define Paradise as closeness to the physical and spiritual presence of Jesus, because this is how Jesus described the ‘after life’ in John 14:3, where He says:
“And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be.”
So it is the proximity to, and ‘real presence’ of, Jesus that is the most essential characteristic of Heaven or ‘Paradise’. It seems then, that Purgatory might be a temporary delay of Jesus’ coming and ‘taking you to myself’ at the time of our deaths. Maybe ‘our ascension’ or the time it takes for us to be completely united in the close presence of Jesus will take a long time( for some lesser, for others more), wherein we suffer in accordance to the distance and time we are away from Him? Hell, on the other hand, is where Jesus does ‘NOT COME AND TAKE YOU TO HIMSELF’. In this case a soul is far from the light and peace of Christ and the Holy Trinity; the ‘outer darkness’ as Jesus says.
So, St. Dismas seems to teach us something about purgatory and eternal life, when combined with Jesus’ other statements. Though it is still a great mystery per the saying of St. Paul:
“…eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.” [1Cor. 2:9]
^^^Very good comment. Probably comes close to the Eastern view of progressive sanctification after death. In my opinion, the main difference is the idea of “merits,” but even this I believe is just ultimately a nominal difference in explaining how we rewarded by God for faithfulness.
It seems that if Jesus said “…every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgement.” Then the contrary should hold true as well; which should go something like this: “…every true and holy word a that men shall speak, they shall receive reward for it on the day of judgement.”?
This is another way of demonstrating God’s intimate knowledge of us, such as when Jesus said
“And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not be afraid…”
So, it seems that God will count not only our great sins and virtues…but our ‘nano’ sins and ‘nano’ virtues as well; and reward or punish us accordingly. Purgatory, then, is just a term used to describe where, or how, this actually happens after we are separated from our bodies at the time of our passing from this world.
In Col 3 slaves have their reward in heaven for their labors. So merits are not an unbiblical concept but strikingly absent in historical Orthodoxy other than in some anti protestant writings in the 18th and 17th centuries.
Consider that Jesus did not take Dismas down from his cross, rather allowed him to pay his debt in this life. Dismas acknowledged that his sentence was just and thus in accordance with God’s will, while at the same the expressing his faith and hope in Jesus for his future.
When Jesus says we will be “held accountable for every idle word” it means that God’s judgement is very fine. But then again His judgement of our good and holy words and actions should be likewise not over looked in His judgement. But we can be very thankful for this Gospel teaching about Dismas because it is a testimony to Christ’s great mercy and love ; and it gives us hope that He might have the same mercy on us as He had on Dismas.
In any case, it is God who judges. We must just do our best to ‘keep the word’ of Jesus, as He taught us:
Amen, Amen, I say unto you: If any man keep my word He shall not see death forever.
So, our job is to do exactly what Jesus tells us to do in His holy Gospel.
Dismas’s cross became a means for a dramatic late conversion of heart that opened and aligned him to God’s will and mercy to a degree that few of us ever encounter in this life. If we’re honest with ourselves, we should realize how far from perfect is our own conversion and shouldn’t be surprised that the cure involves great suffering. I take comfort in the thought that the suffering souls in Purgatory also possess a certain joy in anticipation of Heaven and wouldn’t trade their current temporary condition for life on Earth where Hell remains a possibility.
Nice reflection, John.
Hi Craig,
On a side note, you might be pleased about this article : “POPE DONATES 100,000 EUROS (£90,000) TOWARDS FIRST ORTHODOX MONASTERY IN AUSTRIA”.
See: http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/8686/pope-donates-100-000-euros-90-000-towards-first-orthodox-monastery-in-austria
Whoa, boy have things changed, though I am not sure if I’d be happy if I were RC.
Craig,
I have been handing out “The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ” selections at a college campus now for about 5 weeks, usually 2-3 days each week. And what I see is that the the most basic information on the life and teachings of Jesus is not getting out to youth today. So, it is the Kerygma that mostly needs to be spread, as compared to detailed catechesis; that is, it’s the basic life and teachings of Jesus that is lacking on a monumental scale. After these kids can study the words and examples of Christ Himself (the Gospel), they are then in a position to get deeper into catechetical differences between Christians, Church history, apologetics, etc.., later.
I think this is what Pope Francis is stressing. Even though doctrinal differences are important, most important today is merely to expose people, and especially youth, to the words and examples of Christ as is found in the Gospels so that they might come to love Him. After this they will gradually be able to have an appetite(due to that love) so as investigate into the various theological details such as are presented on sites like this.
Pope Francis knows of this deficiency in Kerygmatic evangelization in the world. We had a world wide ‘Year of Faith’ focusing on ‘the New Evangelization’ just about 6 years ago, devoted exclusively to this. So, I think Pope Francis is focusing his attention on what is most at need in the world right now, which is getting people to personally know and love Jesus Christ. Because if we don’t focus on this, we will soon have a world filled with atheists and pagans, and with all the evil consequences for society that will surely follow.
Best to you.
I am in the middle of moving and working a new job. I hope to be involved soon at a local college near me but i will need prayer. I have not had so manu demands on my time for years.
God bless
Craig
Hi Craig,
You’ll get frequent prayers from me. And probably from others here, too.
The lay vocation isn’t exactly easy. And there are so many ways we need God’s help just to scrape by.
Best to you and your wife always,
– Al
Al, one thing I am grateful for about brain-deading labor is that it lessens the occasion to sin. God is gracious to me for where I am in my spiritual walk.
God bless,
Craig
Good news, Craig! Best to you.
One last consideration regarding the existence and nature of Purgatory.
Jesus says in Luke 14:8 :
“When thou art invited to a wedding, sit not down in the first place, lest perhaps one more honourable than thou be invited by him: And he that invited thee and him, come and say to thee, Give this man place: and then thou begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee, cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee.”
The symbolism of the ‘wedding feast’ we know was used by Jesus on occasion in reference to the ‘last judgement’, such as we find in ‘the parable of the wise and foolish virgins’, and also the ‘parable of the improperly dressed Wedding Feast attendee’. So, if we analyze this passage in the same way as these others, we can notice a few things. First, there is a special order at the Feast presented to us by Jesus, wherein He notes 1. a ‘first place’, 2. a ‘lowest place’ and 3. a middle, or ‘higher place’ described at the great Wedding Feast. Moreover, we know that this parable is a lesson pointing to the neccessity of the virtue of ‘humility of heart’, because it is ‘sinful pride’ which Jesus insinuates leads the presumptuous man to strive for the ‘first place’; wherein he is chastised for his rashness and replaced to the ‘lowest place’ at the Feast.
So, as this pertains to eternal judgement, or entrance into the kingdom of Heaven– and the same type of Feast where Jesus says that the garments worn must also be those mandated by the ‘Bride groom’–we can see how there can be a change of status at such a feast, wherein the opinion of the guests will be weighed against the judgement of the ‘Bridegroom’ regarding their status, or position, at the Feast. This is to say, that our opinions or self assessments might actually be exaggerated, or ‘puffed up’ , due to inherent pride in our souls, and consequently we might assess ourselves to a much greater or higher degree than we actually merit before God.
This imagery of Jesus, seems to teach that for some souls, there will need to be an adjustment of their attitudes and self assessments, and this adjustment and harmonization to Eternal Truth will be painful to the degree that the assessment is wrong. Thus, Jesus recommends the safest route, and that is to opt to take the ‘Lowest Place’ wherein the self judgement cannot go wrong. That is, there is only one way to go, and that is upwards, if it is indeed deserved by the judgement of God. But, being chastised before all the others, and told to “sit down in the lowest place”, Jesus notes, will bring some type of spiritual pain and humiliation before the others that were allowed to the great Feast (Eternal Life).
So, it seems that this parable of Jesus symbolizes a type of ‘Purgatory’ wherein a sinful soul will be harmonized to Eternal Truth, and the same which is accompanied by pain and suffering associated with such a God ordained correction.
“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”
The clear inference is that having paid to the “uttermost farthing”, you shall indeed come out.
But this debate, like the debates over the nature of The Holy Trinity is another example of human foolishness: we have been told all that it is necessary for us to know in this life.
At least the RC church no longer trying flog the mercy of God like merchandise in a market – or are they?
https://archive.org/details/Samuele-Bacchiocchi-Endtime-Issues-Newsletter-187/page/n7/mode/2up
“PURGATORY”
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
Retired Professor of Theology, Andrews University
The Essay of this Newsletter is taken from
Chapter 5 of the forthcoming book:
POPULAR BELIEFS: ARE THEY BIBLICAL?
During the five years I studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome from 1969 to 1974, occasionally I worked as a tourist guide. One of the sites I liked to show to tourists is called La Scala Santa or The Holy Stairs , which consists of 28 marble steps, protected by wooden boards. It is located opposite the Basilica of San Giovanni Laterano.
According to Catholic tradition, the stairs were part of the praetorium of Pilate in Jerusalem, which Jesus ascended during his Passion. Medieval legends claim that The Holy Stairs were brought from Jerusalem to Rome about 326 by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great.
Devout pilgrims are eager to ascend The Holy Stairs on their knees, reciting prescribed prayers, because they are promised to receive indulgences for themselves and their loved ones in purgatory. On September 2, 1817 Pope Pius VII granted to pilgrims ascending the stairs in the prescribed manner, an indulgence of nine years for every step. An indulgence is the remission or limited release from the temporal punishment believers must suffer in this life or in purgatory for venial (minor, forgivable) sins they have committed.
One day I took to the The Holy Stairs an inquisitive American tourist, who bombarded me with probative questions. When we entered the Holy Stairs, the Passionist Father caring for the shrine, gave us a small card with the picture of the Holy Stairs on the one side, and the instructions on how to receive nine years of indulgence per step on the other side.
After reading about the nine years of indulgence per step, the American tourist asked the Passionist Priest: “Please, Father, could you explain to me what will happen if I ascend the Holy Stairs in the prescribed manner four times, earning a total of 1008 years of indulgences, but I need only for 500 years of indulgence to transit from purgatory to paradise? What is God going to do with the 508 extra years of indulgence that I worked for?” The priest responded in a pastoral manner, saying: “My son, do not worry about the extra indulgences, because God will automatically apply them to your relatives in purgatory.”