We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Catholic view of Purgatory ... Is it real?

michael_legna's picture

Restating a position without addressing arguments does nothing

Dan Fugett said -
However, a poster did raise the topic of Purgatory as it relates to salvation.

And I addressed it pointing out that purgatory is only a process that is gone through by those who are saved already and so it does not impact salvation at all. It is like saying that the rapture (as some define it) is a salvation issue, because it is something some people will go through who are saved. The purgatory no more affects your salvation than the raptured does, both of them occur after one is already saved and declared so at the judgment.

Dan Fugett said -
Whether you agree with it or not, the doctrine of purgation for post baptismal venial sins committed and not "paid for" before death, consittutes a slap to the face of the Atoning work of Christ on the Cross.

No it constitutes a slap in the face possibly for your interpretation of the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

Dan Fugett said -
The doctrine of Atonement is incompatible with the doctrine of Purgatory. In the Cross, Jesus paid for all sins.

We disagree on that and it has been discussed in another thread where once again I was able to defend the idea that the work of the cross when "finished" did not complete the salvation of those who will be saved, but only "finished" the offer of the free gift. I was able to support against all rebuttals (by interpreting all applicable verses) the idea that we must play a role in our own salvation - but that is the topic of another lengthy thread and if you care to discuss it we should do so there where alot of the evidence in the form of scripture verses are already provided if you can address them with consistent alternative interpretations.

Dan Fugett said -
In fact, you prove the point in your re-quote of 1 Jn 1:7-9. If there is such a thing as venial vs cadinal sins, both are part of all sins. If God considers there to be a difference between pre-conversional and "post-baptismal" sins, all the sins cleansed by the blood of Christ are covered by that blood.

Yes there is a difference between venial and mortal sins. Yes there is a difference between pre-baptismal and post baptismal sins. Which is why 1 John 1:5 through 1 John 2:1 which you brought up to defend the counter idea did not support your argument just as I showed.

Where you make you mistake is that the blood of Jesus does cover all those sins and does cleanse us of all those sins, but it does not do so automatically - otherwise it would apply to all men automatically and all men would be saved and we know that is not true. Men must distinquish themselves somehow to have the cleansing effect of the blood of His sacrifice applied to them. This is explained to us in the New Testament and the Gospel where we are told to believe in him with a living faith (inseparable from works) by being Baptized in water and Spirit and after Baptism repenting of sins (both venial and mortal) and confessing and seeking forgiveness. If we fail even to do that last part the cleansing effect of His blood is not applied to us and we end up like the sow that has returned to its wallowing. What more obvious analogy to Baptism and loss of salvation can one hope to find then:

2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

This also includes a host of other ways of being obedient to the Gospel (which I have provided at length in other threads and again defended against all rebuttals and if we continue this discussion it should be there, not here where we are on an unrelated topic).

Dan Fugett said -
Also, while I never dinied that confession of sins and walking in the Light are essential for the believer to continue to receive cleansing from sins, I do maintain that this passage does not support Purgatory or the supporting doctrines of RCC to Purgatory.

How could it not offer support for the RCC doctrine of purgartory? Tell me what if someone commits a sin that does not mortally wound their relationship with Christ (which we Catholics call venial) but does not repent of it, confess it or seek forgiveness? They are saved because their relationship is not completely severed, but yet they cannot enter into heaven, because nothing with the stain of sin on it can be there (Rev 21:27). Scripture tells us these works that do not measure up will be tried and burnt away, like dross from gold and we will suffer loss (1 Cor 3:10-15) . What do you think happens to such an individual and their sinful works, and please make your explanation consistent with Rev 21:27 and 1 Cor 3:10-15

Dan Fugett said -
Neither 1 John, nor any scripture(s), demonstrate performing penance or confession to man to receive forgiveness. None of the scriptures you present prove the necessity of penance as defined by Roman Catholic tradition per http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Easy to say but yet you offer no alternative interpretations to the verses which I provided which do indeed support the idea of works of penance and confession to men. It is not enough to support your claim by just repeating it. If you are serious about searching out the truth of this issue one has to put in some effort and interpret the applicable verses of scripture, just like the Bereans.

Dan Fugett said -
As this site and scripture says, only God can forgive sins and anything else is blasphemy.

No scripture does not say this, and I have not even seen a place on this site which says that.

Scripture has some men claiming that only God can forgive sins:

Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

...and Jesus answers them by asking why they harbor such an evil though in their hearts...

Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

That is because Jesus knew He was going to provide this authority to His Church...

Dan Fugett said -
The Catholic church affirms that forgivenss comes from God ( I think we all agree on that), but also that the power of the keys places power in human hands to literally remit or retain sins making the church the channel of that forgiveness.

Once again you show your understanding of RCC doctrine is in error and so your claim at knowing how you disagree is not so precise.

The authority of the keys is about determining doctrine, not about the authority to forgive sins. (Notice this is authority only - not power - all power rests with God, we are just servants of His carrying out His will).

Dan Fugett said -
Jn 20:21 gives the power to remit/retain sins by the preaching the Gospel to bring people to the Savior.

Where do you get this from? Please support this idea with other verses from scripture. Just preaching the Gospel does not remit or retain sins.

Why did Jesus breath on just these men and give them the Holy Spirit if anyone who preaches the Gospel has this same effect of remitting and retaining sins?

You interpretation simply doesn't fit what happened there.

Dan Fugett said -
In fact, Peter was first to preach to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Peter was offering remission, through the Gospel (Rom 10:17ff).

Why not provide the verse when you reference a new one with some new idea - unless it is because it does not support that idea, just as this one does not.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Where do you see the authority to remit and retain sins in this verse? The idea is not even mentioned - you are reading that into the verse - that is called isegesis.

Dan Fugett said -
The passages in Acts and 1/2 Peter certainly do not have Peter articulating any of the doctrine that supports purgatory or the doctrines which this teaching is an outgrowth of.

You claim this with out showing interpretations so it does nothing more to support your position than your simply restating your postion does - in other words nothing.

Besides these sections of verse may not say anything about a lot of Christian doctrines (like the Trinity perhaps) that does not mean those doctrines are wrong, only that they are not discussed in that section of scripture. Each verse in scripture cannot discuss every doctrine of importance - that is why the Bible is not one verse long. That is why it is so important to interpret all of scripture in union with itself.

Dan Fugett said -
Please show me my error, from clear and plain scripture apart from tradition of the church fathers.

I have already done so, and you have failed to respond to most of the points I have made or you have failed to defend your interpretations against the rebuttals I have made. I have, not once, made an appeal to the authority of Tradition or the Church Fathers or the leadership of the Catholic Church in defending these ideas (except to clarify when you misrepresented the Catholic position on some point). I have defended this doctrine from scripture alone. The fact you have not been able to rebut that defense is no excuse for this red herring.

Dan Fugett said -
On the basis of Jesus work on Calvary, I have full assurance to get to Heaven without having to perform any action in restitution and I will not be perfect when I die. I will be perfect the moment I become absent from this body and present with the Lord. Do you teach different than this???

Since the after life is outside of time I don't talk in terms of instants or time periods (even for purgatory) but yes there is a stage for most of us which scripture says we will go through and suffer loss as our inferior works are burnt away. So you understanding of the work of Jesus on Calvary must be mistaken since it is in contradiction with 1 Cor 3.

Dan Fugett said -
In 2 Cor 5:8 Paul certainly doesnt imply anything about an option of being alive on this earth or with the Lort. He wasnt going to be perfect when he died and he knew it -see Rom 7:24 (again present tense 1st person singular)

If Paul was not perfect when he died then he was going to have his works tried as if by fire and suffer loss - just as scripture says.

Dan Fugett said -
Purgatory does not exist but is an outgrowth of tradition after tradition after tradition, in the Roman Catholic church and not in the Universal Church of Christ.

Just repeating your position adds nothing to the discussion so please stick to offering supported arguments or addessing mine.

Dan Fugett said -
Scripture teaches plainly we can be present with the Lord even though we are not purely perfect until we are with Him, and negates the need for Christians to atone for any temporal venial sin. 2 Cor 5:8ff and 1 Jn 1:7ff demonstrate that

Once again lets look at these verses since so often you provide references we see do not say anything like you claim they do once we interpret them.

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Where does this say there can be no period of purification after death? You assume that the process takes time and that we are not in God's presence as it occurs. Both assumptions are unfounded and only reflect your lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine, which you have judged prior to understanding.

Of course 1 John 1:7 is part of the section of verse I have already provided a detailed interpretation of and showed that it supported my position not yours and yet you refer to it once again still failing to offer your own interpretation or attempt a rebuttal of mine.