Where did this come from?

Again, over at Catholic Answers we find the following under the Social Group forum, in the "Let's Empty Purgatory" thread...

"Jesus said if we pray this prayer 1,000 souls from purgatory are released: "Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the masses said throughout the world today, for all the souls in Purgatory, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen."

Following this we have Catholics literally typing in this prayer. At this writing, there are 131 pages in this thread with an average of 9 to 10 prayers posted per page. A rough calculation would give us an average of 1,179,000 to 1,310,000 souls already freed through the efforts of these members. And if each of the members posted this prayer, at least, 10 times, they will be putting quite a serious dent on purgatory.

Purgatory aside (anyone who reads this thread KNOWS that purgatory is but a fable to me), can someone kindly point me to where Jesus made this promise? Seems to me that if Jesus did say it and valid support is provided, the purgatory debates are fini. Purgatory does exist!

But He really didn't say it, did He. So why say that He did?

Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog

So, yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…














He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...







Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…









Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…



Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…



So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…



Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…



I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.

Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.

Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...



By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).

CM

Cruising around the WWW

Every now and then I look around the web to see if anyone has written anything that's bypassed me. I've found some good things and some bad in regards to my articles. Some demand more attention then others do and some, due to time constraints, will remain in the backburner until I'm free to devote some time to them. Some I don't feel the need to respond to given that the writer(s) haven't really refuted anything I've put on my blog (or any of the articles I've written for Jim's blog for that matter). Although, I may eventually respond to these as well. Well, I found a response to my article Onesiphorus in Purgatory?, by a poster who calls himself "Mad Dawg." The article itself was submitted by a poster named "Ottofire" on the Free Republic forums. The responses are over a year old, but I registered on the forum and am presently awaiting approval. My intent is to let "Mad Dawg" know of my response here.

Mad Dawg's words will be in blue blockquote, any citations will be in brown blockquote, and my response will remain in black and standard format....

The first thing to say is that this is sloppy. What exactly does "according to Rome" mean? Is the statement de fide, an opinion, or what? and "the majority of us" is the majority of whom, please? Certainly we'd guess that the majority of those whose final stop is heaven will spend some time in purgatory, but that's not doctrine.

“According to Rome” means according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure he is fully capable of understanding that Purgatory is a de fide teaching and, yes, it is understood that the majority of Christians, with the exception of martyrs and saints, WILL be going to purgatory. I never said that the amount of those going there is a “doctrine” but only that this is what is proclaimed by Catholics. I base the latter on my experience as a Catholic, on the dialogues I've had with Catholic clergy and laity and from the Catholic apologists I’ve interacted with.

ALL of those who "endure", as churchmouse puts it, Purgatory, will end up in Heaven. Purgatory is an interval, a way station, a pause, and from the point of view of eternity, almost a triviality. SO I think it's tendentious to call it "quite an oversight."

I am only using a word (endure) which has been used by many Catholics in my discussions. I think the word is appropriate considering this is ultimately what those in “purgatory” must do, they must "endure" the temporal punishments, the purgings, while awaiting their release (regardless of how instantaneous or prolonged it may be) to heaven. Mad Dawg trivializes the concept almost to the point of it being just a mere "waiting period" in a sea of infinity but this wasn't always the case. Prior to the Reformation, the emphasis was great on purgatory which was portrayed as a realm to which the souls were subjected to suffering in fire. How Rome portrayed the concept of purgatory historically is downplayed today. Yet, considering that the majority of Christians will go to purgatory, it isn’t a triviality, its impact on Christians cannot be downplayed, thus it speaks volumes that the “state/realm/place” where most Christians go doesn’t muster a single clear passage in Scripture. Instead, we are told that there are “implications” of the doctrine within it, but there is no evidence that these "implications" were interpreted as such by the early church? As medieval scholar Jacques Le Goff proves in his book The Birth of Purgatory, the concept didn't appear in the writings of the church until Clement of Alexandria and Origen. They were those who planted the seeds that would lead to a full-blown doctrine several centuries later. Thus, there is no purgatory in which to call an “…interval, a way station, a pause…” or even a “triviality.”

As a matter of fact, we do not "Realize" that,l and that statement is indicative of the lack of care which characterizes this attempt at a refutation. What churchmouse can reasonably say is that we have no surviving record from before Origen and Clement of "afterlife purgatorial thought". He cannot conclude from that that "there was nothing which even remotely resembled ...." He does not know. (or if He does know, he doesn't show us how he knows.

Using the same logic, the absence of any “surviving record” can mean there was no purgatory to teach. Yet, there are other ways of gleaning that no such concept was being taught in the early church. Not only is there no evidence of it being taught prior to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but even even Augustine regarded it to be a theory. The question arises: How does one theorize that which is claimed to have been taught historically by the church? Either it was taught or it wasn’t and there would be no need for “theories” if it was truly a teaching of the church. In light of this, Mad Dawg's appeal to silence really doesn’t make much sense. And, yet there are other ways to show that the church didn't teach purgatory, but we'll get to this in a bit.

Succumbing to the temptation to present conjecture as known and demonstrated fact is easy and hard to avoid. In this case it casts doubt on the reliability of the writer.

As I have shown, it is hardly conjecture and CAN be derived from the history of the church. Rather, it is completely illogical to assume that a belief in a purgatory was the norm when there isn't any evidence of even the "recognition" of the concept. Again, why claim it as an Apostolic teaching when these same men aren't aware of such a teaching in the church and are left to speculate it? If purgatory were truly a teaching of the church then WHAT is there to speculate. It seems Mad Dawg's attempt to cast “doubt” isn’t grounded considering he is the one who assents to purgatory, yet doesn't provide any evidence that the church truly taught the concept.

And that doubt is justified, since we find Tertullian writing in the early 200's about 'sacrifices' for the dead being a custom of Christians. I think that would count as "before Origen" and as remotely resembling.

Tertullian doesn’t justify the concept. Le Goff clearly proves that Tertullian held no concept of purgatory in his eschatology. Tertullian believed in the concept of refrigerium (see the link below) which is much like the Orthodox. He believed in an intermediate place (Abraham’s Bosom and the hell of the damned of Luke 16) where the dead enjoy a “foretaste” of their eternal destiny, the righteous in Abraham's Bosom and the wicked in the hell of the damned. There is no comparison. For further evidence of what Tertullian believed, see my blog article here: Purgatory and the earliest Fathers

I wonder what churchmouse thinks of the doctrine of the Trinity and and its mention or lack thereof in the early days.

You know, I’ve always viewed this as a red herring. I don’t need the word “Trinity” present, front and center, to validate what Scripture teaches regarding the Godhead. I view the Trinity as a logical extension of Scripture. The "early days"? What did the Fathers see in the "early days"? Did they appeal to a longstanding “tradition” in the church regarding the Trinity? Or did they appeal to what I use—Scripture! For example, Augustine stated:

"For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. FOR
THE NOTICE OF THE TRINITY IS HERE CONVEYED TO US PLAINLY AND WITHOUT LEAVING ROOM FOR DOUBT AND HESITATION. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the
Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. 'Jesus,' it is said, 'cometh;' that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, 'What is the Dove?' when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, 'The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.' And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith, 'Thou art My Son.' THUS THEN WE HAVE THE TRINITY DISTINGUISHED." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)

And what about his mentor Ambrose who stated...

""God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." - Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)

And Basil certainly wouldn't agree that Scripture is unclear on the matter...

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

And then there is Gregory of Nyssa who said...

"For that there is a Word of God, and a Spirit of God, powers essentially subsisting, both creative of whatever has come into being, and comprehensive of things that exist, is shown in the clearest light out of the Divinely-inspired Scriptures." (The Great Catechism, 4)

And Hilary of Potiers claimed that he knew of the Trinity through his study of Scripture before he heard the Nicene Creed (forgive me if the Greek fonts don't translate)...

"I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted o0moiou/sion by o0moou/sion. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of o0moou/sion and o0moiou/sion." (On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns,
91)

Overall, I'm in good company. I see the Trinity in Scripture without the need for councils, but cannot derive a purgatory in the same way.

But I guess it needs to be said yet
again that the role of "proof from Scripture" is very different in Orthodoxy and
Catholicism from what it is in much of Protestantism.

Excuse typos, etc. In haste here ...

If I asked for “proof from tradition” would Mad Dawg be able to produce purgatory for me? And, ironically, he demeans the Protestant rule of faith and parallels his view with the Orthodox, but regardless of Scripture, tradition, or the authority of the church the Orthodox hold to no such doctrine and yet, claim the same antiquity as Rome. Why is it that the Orthodox share the same history, yet completely deny purgatory? How can one church claim that it was an apostolic teaching while the other denies it was ever taught, yet both claim to have received their teachings from the Apostles? And we are talking about a church that split with the West in the early 11th century? This implies that there was no real purgatorial view in the West until after the schism and none in the East? I think the answer is obvious folks—there was no such teaching in the church and the concept arose later through the musings of two Greek church fathers which would eventually lead to a full-blown belief in purgatory for the West.

Purgatory and the earliest Fathers

Over at the Bereans Forums, a Catholic apologist who goes by the tag of "catholic philosopher", wrote to inform me that he was going to engage my articles on purgatory. True to his word, today he posted a response (My original words are in brown, his words in blue, my response is in black, all citations are in purple):

2Maccabees 12:44 - For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

Churchmouse: Again, this passage pertains to the resurrection. The dead CAN rise again without inflicting a purgatory into the mix. Also, why must it be purgatory that Judas is implying? What if Judas was of the view that God can forgive and forget sin before the general judgment? So far, the implication Judas leaves us with is that if one dies in sin then one can pray that his sins be forgotten.

catholic_philosopher: Judas is implying purgatory since he probably believed that NOTHING UNCLEAN CAN ENTER HEAVEN. This men were UNCLEAN and for them to enter heaven, they must be “purged” from their filthiness. That’s why they prayed for the souls of the dead men just like Catholics pray for their dead loved ones.

You didn’t interact with what I stated regarding the Catholic concept of mortal sin (of which idolatry, which is the sin of these men, is considered) and the conclusion it leads to. Judas COULDN’T have had purgatory or the “UNCLEAN” in mind because these men would have been damned. You can’t argue for one position you adhere to and negate the other position you adhere to. Again, Judas was “mindful of the resurrection” and not purgatory. Neither is there any evidence of this being an orthodox belief on Judas’ part because the other simply states that “Judas” perceived that the godly (of which they evidently weren’t) gained favor and that it as a “holy and good thought” (vs.45).

Churchmouse: Understand that the book was written by an "epitomizer" of “Jason the Cyrene” and he’s speaking about Judas Maccabeus. From his vantage point, he assumes that Judas is of the thought that these men may have died godly due to their service to God and regardless of their blatant disobedience to the law. Judas believed in the resurrection, thus he prayed for them. The writer assumes this to be a “good and holy thought.” Judas does the “reconciliation” because he believed they may be delivered from their sins. Again, all this is written with the resurrection in mind and all the Catholic can do is inflict “purgatory” and assume that this is what Judas is implying, but there really is no reason to believe this to be the case considering it doesn’t say how this “deliverance” is to take place. Judas could have assumed that God would merely forget their sins due to their servitude sans a purgatory. IOW, there is no reason to believe that Judas, much less the Jewish people, implied or believed in a purgatory, but could have believed that God could forgive sins after death forthright.

catholic_philosopher: I respect the author’s opinion. But methinks, and I reiterate, Judas is implying purgatory since he probably believed that NOTHING UNCLEAN CAN ENTER HEAVEN. That’s why he and his men prayed. I don’t think they can stand before God’s holiness when they have died with venial sins. There’s an intermediate state for the cleansing of the souls. It’s just a matter of putting a name on it. Catholics call it PURGATORY, where there is purging. You, Protestants, can call it whatever you want it to be called. But what’s most important is that there is an intermediate state.

And I respect yours, but I reiterate that Judas was acting on his own, under his own perceptions, and this is what the “epitomizer of Jason the Cyrene” is indicating. The “epitomizer” doesn’t say that this was common thought, but that it was Judas’ thoughts. One thing to consider is the advent of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai about 2 centuries later which influenced Jewish thought immensely. In their writings we find the ponderings regarding afterlife purgatory. Shammai theorized the possibility and Hillel, although believing in an intermediate state (as Jesus alluded to in Luke 16), didn’t believe it was purgatorial. If Judas did indeed reflect a purgatorial thought, why would one sage be theorizing and the other denying almost two centuries later?

Just a question to the author. IF YOU DIE NOW, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HOLY AND PURE ENOUGH TO FACE GOD IN HIS HOLY PRESENCE? Be honest!

I don’t know how this would matter in terms of our discussion. The discussion isn’t about how I perceive myself because, if there is no purgatory, then there must be something, or rather Someone else who purifies us and makes us holy. What I perceive and what God does are two different things because God’s ways are not our ways. And the Christian life is a life of growing in sanctification. If there is no growth then I would question one’s Christianity. So, in light of this, yes, IN Christ I will be holy and pure enough to face God in his holy presence. He is our covering and our sanctification. I assume you have Hebrews 12:14 when asking this question. If we were going to use the wooden literality of the term “holiness” then Job 1 would make no sense. After all, the most unholy of all is not only standing before Him, but speaking to Him as well. Therefore, the holiness being spoken of in Hebrews 12:14 must be speaking of something else and and not a purity that is required to see Him.

Churchmouse: In ending, it seems the passages in 2 Maccabees 12 aren’t any more provocative then the common Scripture verses Catholics claim imply a purgatory. Truth is, Catholics cannot uphold this as evidence of a purgatorial belief anymore then the passages they claim from our common Scriptures. Again, there are no early writings which would corroborate that the early church viewed these passages to be purgatorial. Instead, as they do the common Scriptures, they seek implications and read their doctrine back into them.

catholic_philosopher: There are no early writings in the early church for purgatory? The most explicit extra-biblical evidence for the belief in the doctrine of purgatory in the ancient Church is found in its liturgies. Without exception, in the East and the West, the various Eucharistic liturgies contained at least one memento mori, “remembrance of the dead.” There would have been no point in praying for the dead if it was certain that they were already in heaven, as they would have no need of prayers. If they were in hell, prayer could do them no good. But the Church knew then, as she does now, that there is a “middle state” where some who die in the state of grace and are assured of their salvation can benefit from our prayers.

The problem with this is that the early church can pray for the “remembrance of the dead” without injecting a purgatorial thought into the mix. The church CAN pray for the dead independent of a purgatory and this is what the evidence reveals. Medieval historian and scholar, Jacques Le Goff, clears this up:

Finally, some of these texts describe a place which, though quite similar to the "bosom of Abraham," is not always identical with it: the refrigerium. A number of funerary inscriptions bear the words refrigerium or refrige-rare (refreshment, to refresh), either alone or in conjunction with the word pax (peace): in pace et refrigerium, esto in refrigerio (may he be in refrigerium), in refrigerio anima sua (may his soul be in refrigerium], deus refrigeret spiritum tuum (may God refresh his spirit).

An excellent philological study by Christine Mohrmann has clearly traced the semantic evolution of refrigerium from classical to Christian Latin: "Alongside these rather vague and shifting definitions, the words refrigerare and refrigerium took on, in Christian idiom, a very definite technical meaning: heavenly happiness. We find refrigerium used in this sense as early as Tertullian, in whose writing it denotes both the temporary happiness of souls awaiting the return of Christ in the bosom of Abraham, according to Tertullian's own conception of the matter, and the everlasting good fortune of Paradise, which is enjoyed by martyrs from the time they die and which is promised to the elect after the final divine verdict.. . Among later Christian writers refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the grave, promised by God to the elect.

"Refrigerium has a special place in the prehistory of Purgatory only because of the personal conception of Tertullian, to which Mohrmann alludes in the above paragraph. Indeed, as we have seen, refrigerium denotes a quasi-paradisaical state of happiness and not a place. But Tertullian imagined a special kind of refrigerium, the refrigerium interim or "interim refreshment" reserved for certain of the dead, singled out by God as worthy of special treatment during the period of their death and the time of final judgment (The Birth of Purgatory, Ch.1, pp. 46-47).

As Le Goff rightly states, these prayers (the one’s you say are found in ancient liturgies) don’t reflect a purgatorial thought. One can pray for “refrigerium”, a refreshing of heavenly happiness. To put it within your perspective, prayers for the dead DON’T have to be pigeonholed into a “There would have been no point in praying for the dead if it was certain that they were already in heaven, as they would have no need of prayers. If they were in hell, prayer could do them no good” concept because some in the early church CAN and DID pray for refrigerium. So, yes, one can pray for the dead in the early church WITHOUT adhering to a purgatorial concept.

Here are some of the Church Fathers and what they have to say about Purgatory:

Before we begin, let me just state that I acknowledge that some fathers held to a view that figured into the prehistory of Purgatory, but these are later fathers. Earlier fathers, such as Tertullian, spoke of an intermediate state that was paradisiacal in nature (as I will explain below) and others, such as Augustine, theorized the possibility, albeit they had no firm convictions regarding it. What is very telling indeed is the absence of any writings early on formalizing a belief in purgatory. Also, you may want to add where to find these citations. I had to put each through a search engine, just to find the citation came from and found them cited by a multitude of Catholic websites for the purpose of supporting purgatory.

Tertullian (160-225AD)“We offer sacrifices for the dead[24] on their birthday anniversaries" (211 AD)

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

As Le Goff mentioned in the above passage, Tertullian believed in the refrigerium and held to no purgatorial understanding. Nothing in the passage you provided alludes to it in light of the refrigerium. Tertullian’s eschatology is somewhat like what the Eastern Orthodox teach, that the soul receives a foretaste of their eternal abode. The righteous in Abraham’s Bosom (or a state like it) and the wicked in the hell of the damned (see Luke 16:19-31), but there is no afterlife purgation in Tertullian’s eschatology. Again, Le Goff states regarding Tertullian (in its entirety, but pay attention specifically to the fourth paragraph which adds context to the citations you gave):

An African who died sometime after 220, Tertullian wrote a brief treatise, now lost, in which he argued "that every soul was confined in Hell until the Lord's [judgment] day" (De anima 55.5). This was an adaptation of the Old Testament idea of sheol. This other world was located under¬ground, and it was here that Christ descended for three days (De anima 54.4).

In Against Marcion and On Monogamy, Tertullian goes into detail about the other world and presents his concept of refrigerium. Marcion argued that not only martyrs but ordinary righteous people were admitted into Heaven or Paradise immediately after their death. Tertullian, on the other hand, basing his contention on the story of Lazarus and the rich man, maintains that, while awaiting resurrection, ordinary righteous souls reside, not in heaven, but in a refrigerium interim, the bosom of Abraham. This place, the bosom of Abraham, though not in heaven, and yet above hell, offers the souls of the righleous an interim refreshment [refrigerium interim] until the end of all things brings about the general resurrection and the final reward" (Adversus Marcionem 4.34). Until the end of time the bosom of Abraham shall serve as "the temporary receptacle of faithful souls.”

Tertullians’s thought in fact remains highly dualistic. In his view there are two contrasting fates: punishment, which is conveyed by such words as torment (tormentum), agony (supplicum), and torture (cruciatus), and reward, denoted by the term refreshment (refrigerium). In two places it is stated that these destinies are eternal.

On the other hand, Tertullian lays great stress on offerings for the dead on the anniversary of their deaths and asserts that pious practices may be based on tradition and faith even if there is no foundation for them in Scripture. (Broadly speaking, with the exception of Matthew 12:32 and Paul’s 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, textual underpinnings are almost entirely lacking for the doctrine of Purgatory.) Tertullian writes: “We make oblations for the deceased on the anniversary of their death…If you look in Scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices, you will find none. It is tradition that justifies them, custom that confirms them, and faith that observes them” (De corona militis 3.2-3).

With regard to the prehistory of Purgatory, Tertullian’s innovation, if it was an innovation, was t have the righteous spend a period of time in refrigerium interim before coming to reside in eternal refrigerium. But there is nothing really new about the place of refreshment, which is still the bosom of Abraham. Between Tertullian’s refrigerium interim and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind—for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory—but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins.

All in all, CP, there is no purgatory in Tertullian’s eschatology. The citation you used is misleading in light of the fuller picture. But I’m assuming that you took it from another website.

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

Again, Le Goff speaks about this:

"Some writers have credited Cyprian with making an important doctrinal contribution to Purgatory as early as the mid-third century. In his Letter to Antonian [Letter 51:20] Cyprian distinguishes between two kinds of Christians: 'It is one thing to await forgiveness and another thing to arrive in glory; it is one thing to be sent to prison [in carcere] to be let out only when the last farthing has been paid and another thing to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue; it is one thing to be relieved and purified of one's sins through a long suffering in fire and another thing to have all of one's faults wiped out by martyrdom; and it is one thing to be hanged by the Lord on Judgment Day and another to be crowned by him at once.'...Jay's refutation of the notion that Cyprian put forth a doctrine akin to that of Purgatory seems to me well founded. According to Jay, what is being discussed in the letter to Antonian is the difference between Christians who did not stand up to persecution (the lapsi and apostates) and the martyrs. It is not a question of 'purgatory' in the hereafter but of penitence here below. The reference to imprisonment has to do not with Purgatory, which in any case did not yet exist, but rather with the penitential discipline of the Church." (The Birth of Purgatory, pp. 57-58)

St John Crysostom (347-407 AD)“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, 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.

I checked where the passage came from (Homilies on I Corinthians, 41:5) and didn’t find anything that would bring a purgatorial context to passage. In light of the other fathers, Chrysostom could be talking about anything here. Do you have anything else from him to qualify this passage differently then the others?

St. Augustine (354-430AD)“We read in the book of Maccabees that the sacrifice was offered for the dead, But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the universal Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead has its place.

I’ll cite my buddy, Jason Engwer on this one:

Augustine is widely considered the father of Purgatory. Roman Catholics often quote him referring to something similar to the modern Catholic doctrine. But what these Catholics don't explain is that Augustine acknowledged that he was speculating. In other words, he wasn't passing on some apostolic tradition handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles. Rather, he was speculating about what might happen in the afterlife. Jacques Le Goff explains:

"[Joseph Ntedika] has put his finger on a key point, showing not only that Augustine's position evolved over the years, which was to be expected, but that it underwent a marked change at a specific point in time, which Ntedika places in the year 413....In the Letter to Dardinus (417) he [Augustine] sketches a geography of the otherworld which makes no place for Purgatory." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 62, 70)

In other words, Augustine's views on the subject developed over time, and he was inconsistent. The Protestant historian George Salmon explains the significance of these facts:

"In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a 'perhaps' at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it." (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], pp. 133-134)

Here's an example of Augustine expressing his uncertainty:

"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it." (The Enchiridion, 69)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386AD)“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out"

Again, at best, this citation could be used to convey that Cyril believed that those in heaven are praying for us and that we can pray for them while in celebration of the Eucharist. Again, in light of other fathers before Cyril, we can’t just assume that these prayers are for those in a purgatory.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in 375AD) "Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their behalf, even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid to them. And it is useful also, because in this world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily, and thus it is a reminder to do better"

I would like to see this in further context before I can comment. I understand this comes from his Panarium, but I can’t find it anywhere. I don’t know who he is directing the prayers to. It only states “on their behalf.” Who does the pronoun “their” refer to? How do you know if it is the dead being spoken of here? Maybe he did believe in afterlife purgation and, then again, maybe he didn’t. There is no way of really knowing. Besides, I think I got my point across.

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

The same thing goes here. However, Origen and Clement of Alexandria lived within the 2nd to 3rd centuries. They proffered the possibility of afterlife purgation. There are fathers living during or past this point who sought the possibility as well. So, it is no surprise to see purgatorial thought develop throughout. However, there were other fathers who contradicted the thought of purgatory. Again, I cite my friend, Jason Engwer and his comments:

Clement of Rome always refers to deceased Christians being in Heaven. He repeatedly mentions the concept, with no reference to Purgatory. The RCC believes that *some* Christians don't have to go to Purgatory, but how could Clement of Rome and other church fathers know that a person was able to avoid Purgatory? Since they wouldn't have had such knowledge, the most likely explanation for their referring to deceased Christians being in Heaven seems to be that they had no concept of Purgatory. Clement writes:

"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him....Thus was he [Paul] removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.... To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward....Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure from this world; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them....All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ." (First Clement, 5-6, 44, 50)

*******************************

Gregory Thaumaturgus seems to have had no concept of Purgatory. Like Protestants, he refers to two realms of the afterlife, not three, with all "good men" going to Heaven at death:

"And the good man shall depart with rejoicing to his own everlasting habitation; but the vile shall fill all their places with wailing, and neither silver laid up in store, nor proved gold, shall be of use any more. For a mighty stroke shall fall upon all things, even to the pitcher that standeth by the well, and the wheel of the vessel which may chance to have been left in the hollow, when the course of time comes to its end and the ablution-bearing period of a life that is like water has passed away." (A Metaphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 12)

*******************************

Irenaeus didn't believe in the doctrine of Purgatory. We know that Jesus went to Paradise on the day of His crucifixion (Luke 23:43), and Irenaeus refers to all believers going to the same place until the time of resurrection. He also identifies this place as the place where Paul went in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Irenaeus refers to all believers going to Paradise, which he distinguishes from Heaven, until the time of the resurrection. As I explained with regard to Papias, Paradise is just another *region* of what evangelicals refer to as "Heaven". Irenaeus' terminology is different from that of evangelicals, but his definitions are basically the same, as is proven by his references to Jesus going to this place and his reference to 2 Corinthians 12. Roman Catholicism tells us to pray that deceased Christians can be taken out of a place of suffering prior to the resurrection. Irenaeus, on the other hand, refers to all deceased Christians being in Paradise, not a place of suffering, until the resurrection:

"Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation of all things, as a prelude to immortality....For as the Lord 'went away in the midst of the shadow of death,' where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up into heaven, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. 'For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.' As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight to heaven, but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up to heaven; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this privilege." (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2)

*********************************

Justin Martyr contradicted the doctrine of Purgatory, not only by referring to the redeemed going to a better place, but also by mentioning only two regions of the afterlife, not three. He seems to have no concept of people going to a third place, then being transferred to Heaven sometime before the judgment:

"The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment." (Dialogue with Trypho, 5)

***********************************

Athenagoras rejects the concept of Purgatory in favor of believers going to Heaven when they die. Not only does he say that believers go to Heaven, but he mentions Hell as the only alternative, without mentioning any Purgatory:

"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea for the Christians, 31)

Why would I believe in a writer that was born in the 20th century and writing against purgatory? I’d rather put my faith in what the Early Church Fathers taught.

Answer: Because you are being selective and assuming that these fathers are implying purgatory, but it first starts with the assumption that a purgatory does exist. And you further assume that there was consensus amongst all of the fathers on purgatory, when there evidently wasn’t.

The nearer the source, the clearer the water.

My point exactly! The closer we are to the early church, the more we realize the absence of any purgatorial concept.

I challenge the author to refute what the Church Fathers said about Purgatory.

I believe I have given ample reason to show that none of these fathers speak of purgatory. You can only assume they are. The earlier fathers don’t speak of any such concept, other later fathers aren’t exactly clear what they believe, some fathers theorize the concept, other fathers contradict any purgatorial concept, and other fathers may have believed in some type of afterlife purgation, albeit done before the resurrection, but not indicating how. The bottom line is that the church fathers believed all sorts of things and can be equated to any Christian writer, past and present, who indulge us with their POV’s and musings. They aren’t infallible. The bottom line is that you can only assume they are talking about purgatory, CP, under the pretense that a purgatory already exists. That’s become evident in your last sentence.

CM

2 Timothy 1:16-19 - Onesiphorus in Purgatory???

Seems I indirectly started a series on the Scriptures (and assumed “Scripture” verses) which are alleged to support purgatory. I think I will stay on this subject for awhile. I figure that if a refutation of the doctrine is to be made, it starts with the Scriptures Catholics claim imply a purgatory. With this in mind we go to 2 Timothy 1:16-19 which reads:

May the Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me, and he was not ashamed of my chain, but having come to Rome, he more diligently sought and found me. May the Lord give to him to find mercy from the Lord in that Day. And in what things he served in Ephesus, you know very well.

The argument usually goes like this:

From the context, it seems certain that Onesiphorus is dead (This is also the opinion of the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible; vol 3; p 603). Paul praises his Christian friend, Onesiphorus, for his good work, but notice Paul does not presume immediate entrance into heaven for his dear friend (Even if Onesiphorus is not dead, Paul still asks the Lord to be merciful). Why be merciful, if all Christians go straight to heaven? We either have Paul praying for a dead person, or we have him interceding for him for mercy on his judgment day. In either case, purgatory alone can explain such thoughts of Paul. If there is no purgatory, then Christians go straight to heaven, which is the popular Protestant belief. If this is so, then Paul's remarks are totally off base; it would be meaningless to ask mercy for Onesiphorus. Purgatory alone makes the passage coherent (see here Purgatory).

Onesiphorus was very faithful. In spite of Paul’s situation (remember Paul was chained to a soldier), he not only sought him out, but did so diligently. Paul was very thankful for his faithful disciple and bestowed his blessing upon him and his family. The context of the passage doesn’t really reveal if Onesiphorus is alive or dead. Paul could have easily stated the same if Onesiphorus was away or jailed; thus he bestows these blessing upon his family residing in Ephesus. The Roman Catholic priest who wrote this allows for the possibility that Onesiphorus is alive, which is a rarity considering many do not waver and claim he is dead. Yet, Catholic tradition state that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D. (see here: St. Onesiphorus) and considering that these sources place Paul’s death at around 67 A.D. (see here: St. Paul) this would place Onesiphorus’ death some 14 years AFTER Paul. For those who insist that Onesiphorus is dead in the passage, this would be a case where a Catholic tradition contradicts Catholic apologetics.

Yet, the writer assumes that a purgatory is implied even if Onesiphorus is alive and he bases this on Paul’s prayer for mercy on “that Day.” This is a leap in logic considering that God can grant mercy at the general Judgment without the need for a purgatory. This would entail reading purgatory into the verse. There is no reason to jump this far considering that the fact that God allows us into heaven is based on His mercy. But why did Paul specifically pray for mercy upon Onesiphorus, especially if there was no reason to? It can be gathered from the context of the verse that Paul was merely being reciprocal to the house of Onesiphorus. In other words, he prays for mercy upon Onesiphorus because Onesiphorus had mercy on him with his visits. There is no need to inflict purgatory into the verses when there is nothing which lends to it.

In closing, I must mention that, according to Rome, the majority of us will endure purgatory. Only the saints and those who die in martyrdom will bypass it. Scripture evidently speaks of a heaven and a hell, but for purgatory, where the majority will go, it’s odd that the writers can only muster “implications.” That's quite an oversight. Indeed, it is odd that one could only muster implications considering its importance in the afterlife. Asides from its absence in Scripture, we realize that for almost two centuries there was nothing which even remotely resembled afterlife purgatorial thought, Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the first to indulge a concept of it with its fruition coming in the 12th century.

Let's look at 1 Corinthians 3:12-15

Some observations on the verses:

"And if anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of each will be revealed; for the Day will make it known, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire will prove the work of each, what sort it is. If the work of anyone which he built remains, he will receive a reward. If the work of anyone shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss; but he will be saved, but so as through fire" (1Corinthians 3:12-15)

It is claimed that the man in the verse "...will be saved, but so as through fire." According to Roman Catholics, this puts the man squarely in the fire and, thus, the man becomes the object of purification. Of course, common sense tells us that the fire must come into contact with the object in order to cause purification, thus, once again, the man must burn in the fire to which effect causes the purification.

It is further claimed that the man will "suffer loss." Some Roman Catholics will interpret the word "suffer" to mean that the man will endure some sort of extreme discomfort or pain. The word for "suffer loss" is zēmioo which, according to Strong's Concordance, means:

To injure, that is, (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment: - be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss.

So, the next logical step is to determine what the man is suffering the loss of or if the man himself is going through some sort of suffering. Before we can determine this, the verses speak of the fire testing each man's "work"; thus, we know that the "work" passes through the fire. According to vss. 12 and 13, the works are those men build on the foundation of Jesus Christ. In the context of the rest of the chapter, these are the "works" of ministry. Contextually, the incorruptible materials used to build upon the foundation of Christ will endure the fire, but that which is corruptible will burn away. So, it makes perfect sense that the corruptible works of the man will be destroyed by the fire, thus this correlates with how he suffers. He suffers in the same manner one does when he sees his possessions go up in flames. Yet, he isn't the object of the flames. He escapes the fire. This is comparable to the man whose home catches fire. All his possessions, that which he worked for remain inside. He runs out before the flames claim him. When the flames are put out, he salvages what he can. Yet, almost everything is gone with the exception of that which the fire could not burn. He finds his jewels and other valuables, but that which couldn't endure burned away. Yet, as the verse plainly states, he escaped the the fire. He managed to get out. In essence, this analogy is what the passages show clearly, thus to say that it is purgatorial, placing the man as the object of the "purifying" flames, is forcing the text to say something it doesn't say.

One other thing that bears mentioning, there is no salvation in purgatory according to Rome. The soul who goes there is already saved and, whether it be a literal fire or not, must endure a cleansing in purgatory. Yet, the verses show this to be in reverse. When the man escapes the fire this is when he is "saved." According to Rome, the soul in purgatory is already saved, yet must endure the fire and released when satisfaction is attained, the stains of his sin having been purged, but this doesn't exegete well with the passages which would have the the man saved after he endures the fire.

All in all, it's a wonder that folks would actually believe these passages imply a purgatorial cleansing, when the only objects enduring the flames are those which are away or apart from the man and not those which are attached to him. How one sees a purgatory in a passage which seems to be so anti-purgatory is beyond me.

Purging purgatory from 2 Maccabees

It is a common Roman Catholic argument that 2 Maccabees 12:40-45 implies purgatory in a stronger sense then our common Scriptures. It is further argued that, because Evangelicals don't accept this book as canonical, it doesn't impede what is stated in these passages. It reveals a belief in praying for the dead and the expunging of sin in the afterlife. Thus, it is argued, purgatory would be the sensible outcome of this expiation. I've read the passages over and over again, but cannot find anything which remotely supports anything which implies anything more then the resurrection. Neither have I found any writings of the early church which uses these passages in the way Rome uses it today. So, let us break down these verses and see what it leads to:

2Maccabees 12:40 - Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law.
Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.

Clearly, those who were slain died in the state of idolatry as the law forbids. Those who were present knew this to be the reason for their deaths. Parallel this to the Catholic teaching on mortal sin which would be comparable to their transgression of the law. Those who die in a state of mortal sin cannot be prayed for. They are lost. Judas' prayer would have been unanswered.

2Maccabees 12:41 - All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,

God has revealed before all the cause of their deaths. They died because they were idolatrous.

2Maccabees 12:42 - Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.

These men prayed that the sin committed might be put out of God’s remembrance. Judas used these men as an example for the people to refrain from sin. He warned them what can happen if they indulge sin. It is unclear if the people prayed that God forget the sin in their midst or for these men.

2Maccabees 12:43 - And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:

Judas took a collection and sent it to Jerusalem so as to offer a sin offering. His intentions were pure and honest and because Judas believed in the resurrection he did so. There is no purgatorial implication here, but only that Judas believed in the resurrection—that the dead will rise again. He was hoping that his men would be raised. There was a Jewish belief that seems to have arisen later where the wicked would be destroyed. It is just as plausible to believe that Judas' believed in annihilation as he would in a purgatory.

2Maccabees 12:44 - For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

Again, this passage pertains to the resurrection. The dead CAN rise again without inflicting a purgatory into the mix. Also, why must it be purgatory that Judas is implying? What if Judas was of the view that God can forgive and forget sin before the general judgment? So far, the implication Judas leaves us with is that if one dies in sin then one can pray that his sins be forgotten.

2Maccabees 12:45 - And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Understand that the book was written by an "epitomizer" of “Jason the Cyrene” and he’s speaking about Judas Maccabeus. From his vantage point, he assumes that Judas is of the thought that these men may have died godly due to their service to God and regardless of their blatant disobedience to the law. Judas believed in the resurrection, thus he prayed for them. The writer assumes this to be a “good and holy thought.” Judas does the “reconciliation” because he believed they may be delivered from their sins. Again, all this is written with the resurrection in mind and all the Catholic can do is inflict “purgatory” and assume that this is what Judas is implying, but there really is no reason to believe this to be the case considering it doesn’t say how this “deliverance” is to take place. Judas could have assumed that God would merely forget their sins due to their servitude sans a purgatory. IOW, there is no reason to believe that Judas, much less the Jewish people, implied or believed in a purgatory, but could have believed that God could forgive sins after death forthright.

In ending, it seems the passages in 2 Maccabees 12 aren’t any more provocative then the common Scripture verses Catholics claim imply a purgatory. Truth is, Catholics cannot uphold this as evidence of a purgatorial belief anymore then the passages they claim from our common Scriptures. Again, there are no early writings which would corroborate that the early church viewed these passages to be purgatorial. Instead, as they do the common Scriptures, they seek implications and read their doctrine back into them.

Are the "Spirits in Prison" Those in Purgatory?

A Roman Catholic asks:

Anyway, please educate me CM, what does it mean when St. Peter wrote that ... Christ preached to the Spirits in prison? For sure our Lord cannot be in Hell, and not in Heaven for why would the Spirits still be in prison? Wouldn't this correspond to a middle way?

My response:

Even though I have answered this in other threads, I would be more than happy to oblige. Let’s look at the verse:

1 Peter 3:18-20—For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water).

In context, immediately one notices that the verses aren’t, in the least, purgatorial and speaks in specifics. Who are these “spirits in prison”? They are the antediluvians, those who disobeyed during the days of Noah as the verse plainly states. There is nothing in the verse that gives credence to the concept of purgatory because it states nothing resembling a purgatory. Now, it states that Christ was put to death, but His “spirit” was made alive. IOW, this event happened in between His crucifixion and resurrection when His spirit descended into Sheol (Hades) and preached the will of God to the spirits there. In Luke 16:20-31, Jesus gives insight into the places of the dead by telling us his story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives, if you believe the traditional name of this man). Both went to Sheol (Hades in the Greek), but to two distinct places within Sheol. Lazarus went to what is known as Abraham’s Bosom or “paradise” (Luke 23:43), the place of the OT saints, while Dives went into the hell of the damned. There was a “gulf” between these places where one couldn’t cross to the other side (Luke 16:26). Since Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) the Old Testament saints could not enter the Father’s kingdom until He came, thus they remained in Sheol in a place of “comfort” (Luke 16:25) which was called Abraham’s Bosom (Rome calls this “limbus patrum” or “limbo of the fathers”). When Christ died, He went into Abraham’s Bosom and proclaimed the gospel to the souls there. Just as in Luke 16, those within the hell of the damned could hear Christ proclaim this gospel to the saints in Abraham’s Bosom, and this gospel brought freedom to the saints in the Bosom, but to those in the hell of the damned, it condemns them all the more. Thus, it can be said that Christ preached to the “spirits in prison.” Yet, as you can plainly see, none of these “spirits” were in a purgatory, but the righteous were within Abraham’s Bosom and the wicked were within the hell of the damned. The “spirits” in Abraham’s Bosom were released a few days after the Resurrection where they appeared to many (Matthew 27:52-53).

CM

A doctrine that needs a little "purgation" (heh..heh) Part 1

Good ol' Martin Luther really had his work cut out for him. I mean trying to dialogue with a Church about things you just don't dialogue about. The poor guy just had something to say, but alas, poor Martin was running with the wind and stirred Christians into understanding what we had become.

One of the springboards of the Reformation was the issue of indulgences and purgatory. I think I'll give it a tackle as soon as a I get a chance.

Gee...this blogging thing is easier than I thought. Makes me wonder what would've happen if good ol' Martin were here today, blogging his 95 Thesis here on the WWW.

Peace,
CM