Is there a Purgatory?

[This Baron of Mora]

A subject I know very little on since no one has actually ever talked about it with/to me and I learned about it when, well I don't even know where I first heard of it. Anyway I was wondering what others thought, please keep an open mind and all that and be respectful("no guns causin' fights").
All I know is what C.S. Lewis gives in Letters to Malcolm. Which I might comment/quote later, got to go.

[Kessie]

Here's the Wikipedia on it:

Purgatory is the condition of purification or temporary punishment[1] by which those who die in a state of grace are believed to be made ready for Heaven. This theological notion has ancient roots and is well-attested in early Christian literature, but the poetic conception of purgatory as a geographically situated place is largely the creation of medieval Christian piety and imagination.[1]

The notion of purgatory is associated particularly with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (in the Eastern sui juris churches or rites it is a doctrine, though often without using the name "Purgatory"); Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic tradition generally also hold to the belief. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, believed in an intermediate state between death and the final judgment and in the possibility of "continuing to grow in holiness there."[2][3] The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in the possibility of a change of situation for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of the Divine Liturgy,[4] and many Orthodox, especially among ascetics, hope and pray for a general apocatastasis.[5] A similar belief in at least the possibility of a final salvation for all is held by Mormonism.[6] Judaism also believes in the possibility of after-death purification[7] and may even use the word "purgatory" to present its understanding of the meaning of Gehenna.[8] However, the concept of soul "purification" may be explicitly denied in these other faith traditions.

The word "purgatory", derived through Anglo-Norman and Old French from the Latin word purgatorium,[9] has come to refer also to a wide range of historical and modern conceptions of postmortem suffering short of everlasting damnation,[1] and is used, in a non-specific sense, to mean any place or condition of suffering or torment, especially one that is temporary.[10]

---

So, it's something that's come about in church tradition (it aligns well with Universalism), but there's nothing in the Bible to support it.

[metalikhan]

From what's been explained to me, the doctrine of purgatory is a reasoned one, inferred from some scriptural implications although not specifically stated in any particular scripture. It has more to do with purification than with punishment, because even though we are saved, redeemed, we are still capable of sin as long as we inhabit these fleshly bodies. So whatever sin we as believers are still in when we die must be removed in a final purification before entering God's presence.

I know there's more to the doctrine than that; it doesn't seem to imply that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient in any way. Like so many other doctrines, it's based on human reasoning, subject to flaws, and there's no way to prove or disprove. But IMO, it's less egregious than some (such as the prosperity gospel).

One work of fiction that explores it (a little bit) is Taylor Caldwell's Dialogs with the Devil. Basically, it's a series of "letters" between Lucifer and Michael (the archangel). Thought-provoking book whether you agree with any of it or not.

[brianc]

Purgatory actually originated with the Maccabees, if I'm not mistaken. That's where the Catholics get it from originally. As we know, the Maccabees are what the Pharisees added to the Old Testament texts--extra rules not authorized by God. The Catholic church also is well known for having many Pagan rituals mixed into their own beliefs and rituals.

Catholics believe most saved people go to purgatory till their sin is burned out of them, then they go to heaven (which means the Catholics believe Jesus' sacrifice for our sins was not enough to do the job).

Personally, I think there's a possibility not dissimilar to Purgatory. I think it's possible that hell itself is, in a way, purgatory. It's more for punishment, less for purifying sins. I think it is possible that when a sinner gets to hell, the punishment is so horrific that it humbles absolutely anyone who goes there. Then, Jesus comes to them and asks if they would like to repent and be saved and they accept.

The only reason I say this is a possibility is because the New Testament says Jesus went to the spirits in prison from the time of Noah's flood and made proclamation to them. This is my thought: why would Jesus go down there and tell those spirits "Hey, I just died for the sins of mankind, but you guys are screwed!! SUCKERS!!" Why gloat? He's not like that. So the only other possibility would be that He went there to ask if they would like to repent and be saved. There is another possibility, which is that it's actually talking about demons, not the spirits of men. But we have no way to tell, so this can only merely be a theory, nothing more.

My discussion on hell talks about this possibility. It's in a different thread, though.

Good luck with your discussion here!

- Brian

[metalikhan]

In doing more research about many Catholic beliefs & traditions, I'm finding it imperative to go to Catholic sources for understanding rather than Protestant interpretations of what seems apparent. What looks pagan, or at least faulty theology, to outsiders takes on a different perspective when studied apart from Protestant biases.

The doctrine concerning purgatory is only one example of how deep misunderstanding can be. It's a Protestant fallacy to believe Catholics only learn catechism and don't study the Bible. I was surprised to find how much scriptural text was cited in several sources. (Not just Maccabees.)
True, the word purgatory itself isn't in the Bible. (Neither is Trinity, btw, nor a few other Christianese terms.) But the text cited seems to support the doctrine and answers the objections Protestants have concerning purgatory, specifically that it means Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to redeem us, that it offers a "second chance" for those who rejected Christ in life, and that it has no scriptural basis.

This article was particularly helpful in basic understanding of the doctrine. From the Catholic perspective.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0041.html

[fluke]

Purgatory actually originated with the Maccabees, if I'm not mistaken. That's where the Catholics get it from originally. As we know, the Maccabees are what the Pharisees added to the Old Testament texts--extra rules not authorized by God. The Catholic church also is well known for having many Pagan rituals mixed into their own beliefs and rituals.

This is not entirely true. While purgatory originated in Maccabees, neither 1st nor second Maccabees was considered canonical by any Jewish sect, certainly not the Pharisees who several times in their writings maintain that they have 22/24 holy books. These 22/24 correspond to our Old Testament. They combine all of the minor prophets into one book (The Book of Twelve) and all books that we have as first and second they simply had as one.

It was, however, added by the Catholics, but not the Pharisees.

[This Baron of Mora]

Perhaps "added by the Catholics" is not so accurate, after all they and the Coptic Church of Alexandria, and the Eastern Orthodox Church all come before Protestant Churches (to say nothing of the Nestorian/Church of the East). Did not the Protestant Churches take it away?

If I am not mistaken Maccabees and the rest of the "Apocrypha" we part of the Old Testament before Luther took them out of it and added a "Middle Section" called the Apocrypha between the New and Old Testaments. I should be noted that these books were in the Luther Bible as it is called as well as my favorite, the 1611 King James Bible (and the 1700s version and all the way up to 1885). Even Luther who separated them out says, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.) Here's a link to that www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/.

C.S. Lewis, though an Anglican, was a Anglo-Catholic and believed in Purgatory. On page 107 of Letters to Malcolm he says:

Of course I pray for the dead....And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best are unmentionable to Him?

On the traditional Protestant view, all the dead are damned our saved. If they are damned, prayer for them is useless. If they are saved, it is equally useless. God has already done all for them, what more should we ask? But don't we believe God has already done and is already doing all He can for the living? What more should we ask? Yet we are told to ask.

"Yes," it will be answered, "but the living are still on the road. Further trials, developments, possibilities of error, await them. But the saved have been made perfect. They have finished the course. To pray for them presupposes that...

Please read the rest on page 108, 109, and part of 110 here (I don't care to type the rest):
books.google.com/books?id=f-__QRxS8dAC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Letters+to+Malcolm+purgatory&source=bl&ots=tEj9FM1vFp&sig=u_n7VxGc0nP0kXlYbzf1-M9fKKo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z6LsT9zEEYm_rQGz5JnCBQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[brianc]

Jun 27, 2012 10:36:11 GMT -5 metalikhan said:

In doing more research about many Catholic beliefs & traditions, I'm finding it imperative to go to Catholic sources for understanding rather than Protestant interpretations of what seems apparent. What looks pagan, or at least faulty theology, to outsiders takes on a different perspective when studied apart from Protestant biases.

The doctrine concerning purgatory is only one example of how deep misunderstanding can be. It's a Protestant fallacy to believe Catholics only learn catechism and don't study the Bible. I was surprised to find how much scriptural text was cited in several sources. (Not just Maccabees.)
True, the word purgatory itself isn't in the Bible. (Neither is Trinity, btw, nor a few other Christianese terms.) But the text cited seems to support the doctrine and answers the objections Protestants have concerning purgatory, specifically that it means Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to redeem us, that it offers a "second chance" for those who rejected Christ in life, and that it has no scriptural basis.

This article was particularly helpful in basic understanding of the doctrine. From the Catholic perspective.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0041.html

What I said about Purgatory is that I "think" it comes from the Maccabees, but I'm not sure. I said that because it is one point I have not studied myself. I read something about it coming from the Maccabees a while back. But since I haven't researched it myself, I never claim to know this one for sure. I just threw that out there as "If I remember correctly".

As for the other Pagan traditions in the Catholic church, I know those for certain, because I have researched them in depth. If you'd like to see the Pagan roots, just read Pagan Christianity. The book is very well referenced and it will show you where all of the Paganism in Catholicism comes from. Make no mistake, there is much intentional Paganism in Catholicism which came directly from the Pagans. In fact, Protestants have church the way they do nowadays because of Paganism's influence on Catholicism. We never corrected that screw-up. Church, originally, was strictly held in homes, never more than about 50 people max (unless it was a feast gathering of an entire city), and everyone played a part in the service, which always happened after a party and a meal that all started right at sunset each weekend (Saturday night). I always forget if it's Saturday night or Friday night.

You'd do well to read that book and learn the actual origins of the Pagan rituals the Catholics hold. I've found Catholic documents faulty in the past (whether intentionally faulty or by mistake, I can't say).

- Brian

[brianc]

Jun 28, 2012 13:48:46 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

Perhaps "added by the Catholics" is not so accurate, after all they and the Coptic Church of Alexandria, and the Eastern Orthodox Church all come before Protestant Churches (to say nothing of the Nestorian/Church of the East). Did not the Protestant Churches take it away?

If I am not mistaken Maccabees and the rest of the "Apocrypha" we part of the Old Testament before Luther took them out of it and added a "Middle Section" called the Apocrypha between the New and Old Testaments. I should be noted that these books were in the Luther Bible as it is called as well as my favorite, the 1611 King James Bible (and the 1700s version and all the way up to 1885). Even Luther who separated them out says, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." (King James Version Defended page 98.) Here's a link to that www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/.

C.S. Lewis, though an Anglican, was a Anglo-Catholic and believed in Purgatory. On page 107 of Letters to Malcolm he says:

Of course I pray for the dead....And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best are unmentionable to Him?

On the traditional Protestant view, all the dead are damned our saved. If they are damned, prayer for them is useless. If they are saved, it is equally useless. God has already done all for them, what more should we ask? But don't we believe God has already done and is already doing all He can for the living? What more should we ask? Yet we are told to ask.

"Yes," it will be answered, "but the living are still on the road. Further trials, developments, possibilities of error, await them. But the saved have been made perfect. They have finished the course. To pray for them presupposes that...

Please read the rest on page 108, 109, and part of 110 here (I don't care to type the rest):
books.google.com/books?id=f-__QRxS8dAC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Letters+to+Malcolm+purgatory&source=bl&ots=tEj9FM1vFp&sig=u_n7VxGc0nP0kXlYbzf1-M9fKKo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z6LsT9zEEYm_rQGz5JnCBQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Again, I don't are what others say about the Bible. I like to read it for myself and ask God to show me truth.

I don't care who did or didn't keep books of the Bible in it. What I care about is what the canonized Bible says.

Now, I don't know much about the Catholic belief on Purgatory, but if they believe that unbelievers go there, I can agree with that. If they believe unbelievers are being punished there in order to humble them so they will repent and be saved, then I can agree with that as a possibility too. In fact, I think that's probably likely. If they say it's for purifying them, I think that's unscriptural. I see no scriptural proof of that. The Refiner's Fire is the closest them to that, but I think that's talking about something else.

- Brian

[brianc]

Jun 27, 2012 10:42:28 GMT -5 fluke said:

Purgatory actually originated with the Maccabees, if I'm not mistaken. That's where the Catholics get it from originally. As we know, the Maccabees are what the Pharisees added to the Old Testament texts--extra rules not authorized by God. The Catholic church also is well known for having many Pagan rituals mixed into their own beliefs and rituals.

This is not entirely true. While purgatory originated in Maccabees, neither 1st nor second Maccabees was considered canonical by any Jewish sect, certainly not the Pharisees who several times in their writings maintain that they have 22/24 holy books. These 22/24 correspond to our Old Testament. They combine all of the minor prophets into one book (The Book of Twelve) and all books that we have as first and second they simply had as one.

It was, however, added by the Catholics, but not the Pharisees.

Wait, so is Purgatory in the Maccabees or not? I was strictly speaking of its origin. The Pharisees are who added the Maccabees to the Old Testament, well before Jesus' time. You see, anyone who believed in an afterlife was classified by the Jews as a Pharisee, and anyone who believed against it was classified as a Saducee (believing there was no afterlife, so eat, drink and be marry, for tomorrow we die).

So, where did it originate? I ask because I don't feel like researching it right now. Someone here surely knows.

- Brian

[This Baron of Mora]

Again, I don't are what others say about the Bible. I like to read it for myself and ask God to show me truth.

I don't care who did or didn't keep books of the Bible in it. What I care about is what the canonized Bible says

Brian,
The reason I mentioned any of that is to bring up the point that "canon" for you or me is not canon for everyone. Look at this pageen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (the chart is 1/3 of the way down for the Old Testament, 2/3 down for the New Testament) who knew there were that many versions/opinions! For someone who says they don't care what others say about the Bible, and only follows canon (which is as you can see defined by others) I should think you would want to decide what books are "canon" yourself. In other words who says Maccabees isn't canon. After all by the chart we see only Protestant and the Ethiopian Churches say its not. My point in saying all that about Luther and the King James Bible is to point out that even the original Protestants had it as part of the Bible. In turn perhaps what Maccabees says about "purgatory" has better grounds. Here's what Maccabees 2 says:

43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company, to the sum of two thousand drachmes of siluer, hee sent it to Ierusalem to offer a sinne offering, doing therein very well, and honestly, in that he was mindfull of the resurrection.

44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slaine should haue risen againe, it had bin superfluous and vaine, to pray for the dead.)

45 And also in that he perceiued that there was great fauour layed vp for those that died godly. (It was an holy, and good thought) wherupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be deliuered from sinne.

Some people seem to think the Bible is actually going to say the word purgatory, but that word comes from French and is merely a name prescribed to the place. And for perhaps slightly excessive bias examples look here:www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

And might I add Brian: You certainly seem to hate when I quote people. But I try to only quote that which I believe or find insightful, and I find others thoughts one of the best ways for God to speak into my life and others lives (rather like the Book of Proverbs). When it comes to C.S. Lewis he is one of the "best prayers" I have ever heard of. His friends even asked him to teach them how he does it. In Shadowlands (I have only seen clips) his portrayal says, "[Prayer] doesn't change God, it changes me," a wonderful quote I think, brilliant insight (and the things he says before just as good). My point is that in turn by challenging my quotes of him you can not say your reading and praying is any better than his, his ideas are certainly valid. However I know you mean the best, so wishing only the best, that's that.

[metalikhan]

Jun 28, 2012 13:51:45 GMT -5 brianc said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:36:11 GMT -5 metalikhan said:

In doing more research about many Catholic beliefs & traditions, I'm finding it imperative to go to Catholic sources for understanding rather than Protestant interpretations of what seems apparent. What looks pagan, or at least faulty theology, to outsiders takes on a different perspective when studied apart from Protestant biases.

The doctrine concerning purgatory is only one example of how deep misunderstanding can be. It's a Protestant fallacy to believe Catholics only learn catechism and don't study the Bible. I was surprised to find how much scriptural text was cited in several sources. (Not just Maccabees.)
True, the word purgatory itself isn't in the Bible. (Neither is Trinity, btw, nor a few other Christianese terms.) But the text cited seems to support the doctrine and answers the objections Protestants have concerning purgatory, specifically that it means Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to redeem us, that it offers a "second chance" for those who rejected Christ in life, and that it has no scriptural basis.

This article was particularly helpful in basic understanding of the doctrine. From the Catholic perspective.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0041.html

What I said about Purgatory is that I "think" it comes from the Maccabees, but I'm not sure. I said that because it is one point I have not studied myself. I read something about it coming from the Maccabees a while back. But since I haven't researched it myself, I never claim to know this one for sure. I just threw that out there as "If I remember correctly".

As for the other Pagan traditions in the Catholic church, I know those for certain, because I have researched them in depth. If you'd like to see the Pagan roots, just read Pagan Christianity. The book is very well referenced and it will show you where all of the Paganism in Catholicism comes from. Make no mistake, there is much intentional Paganism in Catholicism which came directly from the Pagans. In fact, Protestants have church the way they do nowadays because of Paganism's influence on Catholicism. We never corrected that screw-up. Church, originally, was strictly held in homes, never more than about 50 people max (unless it was a feast gathering of an entire city), and everyone played a part in the service, which always happened after a party and a meal that all started right at sunset each weekend (Saturday night). I always forget if it's Saturday night or Friday night.

You'd do well to read that book and learn the actual origins of the Pagan rituals the Catholics hold. I've found Catholic documents faulty in the past (whether intentionally faulty or by mistake, I can't say).

- Brian

Understood about your uncertainty about Maccabees. I only added the parenthetical aside (Not just Maccabees.) because you're not the first person to presuppose the whole doctrine is based on it.

But you seem to assume others haven't done much research. In regard to pagan traditions, I go to ancient text sources wherever translations are available rather than trust one person's comparative evaluation. There's a site where you can now find a lot of those writings. sacred-texts.com
I've read/studied about 85% of the titles, most of which before the internet made them widely available (actually before the internet existed).

Churches have always adapted and used local traditions and cultural conventions to spread the gospel. That's true even today. For example, witness the churches which think every techno-geegaw and app (simul-casting, pod-casting, apps for the congregation to text responses to the preacher's questions during service, etc) is necessary for preaching & teaching. Some of the modern cultural adaptations seem to dance every bit as close to error (even idolatry) as the ancient pagan traditions present in the church.

I mentioned a quote on another thread (still not sure where it comes from — seems to be disputed):
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

The essential is that Christ died and resurrected for us. He bought us with His blood. That is the clearest, most fundamental essential.

The doctrine of purgatory isn't a salvational essential. If it were, it would've been given to us with equal clarity. Since it wasn't precisely spelled out in scripture, what happens after physical death is conjecture. Each denomination can present scripture and interpretation to support their particular doctrinal belief, but it doesn't change the essential found in John 3:16.

So, the discussion, although it makes an interesting in-house debate, isn't resolvable. We won't know for certain this side of heaven.

(this side of heaven: a colloquialism, a saying rather than a theological statement)

...in omnibus caritas. In all things, compassion/charity/love.