Is purgatory an indulgence?

[Macrina]

My question springs from the historical development of the Catholic dogma of 'purgatory'.

Some background from my perspective. Around 217 AD or so, the practice of repeating confession came into use. Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.
It is my understanding that according to the Latin understanding, this situation of the faithful in the church came to be known as an "indulgence" of the church.
Meaning sinners are tolerated by the church, with the ideal they will become saints.

Doesn't this make purgatory an extension of this same belief (indulgence)?

[chestertonrules]

My question springs from the historical development of the Catholic dogma of 'purgatory'.

Some background from my perspective. Around 217 AD or so, the practice of repeating confession came into use. Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.

This is inaccurate.

From Pope Clements letter to the Corinthians written in about 90 AD:

Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints. Let us receive correction, beloved, on account of which no one should feel displeased.

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

[chosenone]

It isnt Biblical of course. Also the Bible says that we are ALL saints so the way that certain people are made into saints (by man and not God) definately isnt Biblical either.

[Macrina]

Chestertonrules, what does St Clement's letter to the Corinthian church on sedition arising within them have to do with this subject?

The church in Rome (under St Callistus I), along with the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches exercised economia in relaxing the Apostolic discipline for confession (in reference to what we call "mortal" sins). They issued a formal decree.

[Macrina]

It isnt Biblical of course. Also the Bible says that we are ALL saints so the way that certain people are made into saints (by man and not God) definately isnt Biblical either.

Why don't you make your 'biblical' point using the Latin theological dogma? You may be surprised just how biblical it is, semantics aside of course.

I do not use the term "purgatory" because I do not use Latin theology. In my own Orthodox theology, we use the term "hades".
However, both terms are in relation to the sanctification theology of the saints.

[chosenone]

It isnt Biblical of course. Also the Bible says that we are ALL saints so the way that certain people are made into saints (by man and not God) definately isnt Biblical either.

Why don't you make your 'biblical' point using the Latin theological dogma? You may be surprised just how biblical it is, semantics aside of course.

I do not use the term "purgatory" because I do not use Latin theology. In my own Orthodox theology, we use the term "hades".
However, both terms are in relation to the sanctification theology of the saints.

I dont need to use Latin theological dogma, I use the Bible, which is Gods word.

[Catholica]

My question springs from the historical development of the Catholic dogma of 'purgatory'.

Some background from my perspective. Around 217 AD or so, the practice of repeating confession came into use. Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.
It is my understanding that according to the Latin understanding, this situation of the faithful in the church came to be known as an "indulgence" of the church.
Meaning sinners are tolerated by the church, with the ideal they will become saints.

Doesn't this make purgatory an extension of this same belief (indulgence)?

Hi macrina,

I think that chestertonrules didn't know that you were Orthodox, but was reacting to a perceived error in your statement that the church "excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism".  He was demonstrating the Church's willingness to forgive confessed sins.  I'm not a history buff, so I don't know that they were formally excommunicated, it may well be (in the case of certain mortal sins, such as explicitly and publicly denying Christ, certainly not because of venial sin, nor do I believe it meant all mortal sins), yet I know that at some point it was not required to publicly confess sins (going private), but I'm not sure what event in 217 or document written around 217 you were referring to.  Could you research that?

In terms of your original question, I don't believe that purgatory is an "extension of this same belief".  Venial sins are forgiven by our Lord in Purgatory, not mortal sins, but the remission of venial sins is not something that I believe is moved along more quickly by gaining indulgences, which, by my understanding, only remit unpaid temporal punishment due to sin.  So it seems to me that indulgences are not related to the forgiveness of sins.  Though I could be wrong.  Sorry this is not more scholarly.  :)

[chestertonrules]

Chestertonrules, what does St Clement's letter to the Corinthian church on sedition arising within them have to do with this subject?

The church in Rome (under St Callistus I), along with the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches exercised economia in relaxing the Apostolic discipline for confession (in reference to what we call "mortal" sins). They issued a formal decree.

You said this:

Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.

Which is flat out wrong.  All men sin after baptism.

Did you make that up, or did someone else?

Clement, the Pope at the time, clearly proves you wrong in his letter written around 90 AD.

[Macrina]

Hi macrina,

I think that chestertonrules didn't know that you were Orthodox, but was reacting to a perceived error in your statement that the church "excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism".  He was demonstrating the Church's willingness to forgive confessed sins.  I'm not a history buff, so I don't know that they were formally excommunicated, it may well be (in the case of certain mortal sins, such as explicitly and publicly denying Christ, certainly not because of venial sin, nor do I believe it meant all mortal sins), yet I know that at some point it was not required to publicly confess sins (going private), but I'm not sure what event in 217 or document written around 217 you were referring to.  Could you research that?

Hello Catholica,
Yeah, I guess it was a broad statement. Sorry. And, no, I don't believe it was for venial sins. The top three mortal sins of the era I refer to were idolatry, murder, and adultery. These had to be confessed publicly. The practice of auricular confession was in use as well.

I do not know if an official document exists, it may well be in the vatican somewhere. However in the first few lines of the Montanist Tertullians' De Pudicit we read of a decree that had just gone forth from the Supreme Pontiff that reconciliation was not to be denied even to those guilty of gross immorality. Of course this included their fulfilling such penance as was befitting.

It is my speculation of the date of that document that inclines me to believe it was St Callistus 1 that must have issued the decree. This also likely had to do with the Montanist custom that was not in accordance with the original practice of the church.

In terms of your original question, I don't believe that purgatory is an "extension of this same belief".  Venial sins are forgiven by our Lord in Purgatory, not mortal sins, but the remission of venial sins is not something that I believe is moved along more quickly by gaining indulgences, which, by my understanding, only remit unpaid temporal punishment due to sin.  So it seems to me that indulgences are not related to the forgiveness of sins.  Though I could be wrong.  Sorry this is not more scholarly.  :)

Ok, you'll have to explain the meaning of your terminology somewhat for me.
What do you mean by "gaining indulgences"?  

If indulgences aren't related to forgiveness, then why indulge the sinner in penance?

I guess another question would be, is one in purgatory doing penance?

[Macrina]

Chestertonrules, what does St Clement's letter to the Corinthian church on sedition arising within them have to do with this subject?

The church in Rome (under St Callistus I), along with the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches exercised economia in relaxing the Apostolic discipline for confession (in reference to what we call "mortal" sins). They issued a formal decree.

You said this:

Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.

Which is flat out wrong.  All men sin after baptism.

Did you make that up, or did someone else?

Clement, the Pope at the time, clearly proves you wrong in his letter written around 90 AD.

Sorry Chestertonrules, see my post to Catholica. I did not mean for any sin, such as venial. As Catholica has pointed out, venial sins are forgiven by the Lord.

However, it was common in the early church for auricular confession to be made on ones death bed. Which would not be necessary for venial sins which are forgiven.

Anyway, basically without penance there was excommunication.

[AvrilNYC]

It isnt Biblical of course. Also the Bible says that we are ALL saints so the way that certain people are made into saints (by man and not God) definately isnt Biblical either.

Why don't you make your 'biblical' point using the Latin theological dogma? You may be surprised just how biblical it is, semantics aside of course.

I do not use the term "purgatory" because I do not use Latin theology. In my own Orthodox theology, we use the term "hades".
However, both terms are in relation to the sanctification theology of the saints.

I dont need to use Latin theological dogma, I use the Bible, which is Gods word.

Chosenone,

you keep saying that you use the bible and yet you never provide scripture to support your assertions...maybe you use your biases when you post and not the bible??

Btw, the dogma regarding asking the Saints to pray for us is not "Latin", It's the dogma of the unified Church of the early Fathers. The same early Fathers that compiled the Bible that you keep supposedly "using"

[Macrina]

It isnt Biblical of course. Also the Bible says that we are ALL saints so the way that certain people are made into saints (by man and not God) definately isnt Biblical either.

Why don't you make your 'biblical' point using the Latin theological dogma? You may be surprised just how biblical it is, semantics aside of course.

I do not use the term "purgatory" because I do not use Latin theology. In my own Orthodox theology, we use the term "hades".
However, both terms are in relation to the sanctification theology of the saints.

I dont need to use Latin theological dogma, I use the Bible, which is Gods word.

Chosenone,

you keep saying that you use the bible and yet you never provide scripture to support your assertions...maybe you use your biases when you post and not the bible??

Btw, the dogma regarding asking the Saints to pray for us is not "Latin", It's the dogma of the unified Church of the early Fathers. The same early Fathers that compiled the Bible that you keep supposedly "using"

OFF TOPIC AVRIL !!!! 

[Catholica]

Ok, you'll have to explain the meaning of your terminology somewhat for me.
What do you mean by "gaining indulgences"?  

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the church holds what could be considered a huge repository of merit.  When a faithful person does penance or performs some other meritorious act, that merit from that act becomes part of the repository.  The Church then says that the merit can be applied to others in the body of Christ (since we are all one body) who are in true communion with the Church.  That merit is thereby shared, such that the penitential act of one person can reduce the time that another person needs to suffer in purgatory due to their sins.  The Church ascribes certain pious works and assigns them designations (partial indulgence for partial remittance, plenary indulgence for full remittance) along with other requirements (sacramental confession within 8 days, receive communion on the same day, prayer for the intentions of the pope, and for a plenary indulgence (only), full detachment from all sin, even venial).  If the pious act is performed along with the other requirements, then the merit is applied to that person's soul and the amount of time needed in Purgatory is reduced.  Indulgences, when gained, can be applied to oneself or to a faithful suffering in Purgatory.  In essence, by applying time to someone in Purgatory, the faithful volunteers to suffer in their stead (because they could have applied it to themself).  

If indulgences aren't related to forgiveness, then why indulge the sinner in penance?

Purgatory is a combination of God's justice and mercy.  Souls in Purgatory can no longer gain merit for themselves, because they no longer voluntarily do penance (nor gain indulgences).  Thus their time in Purgatory is simply the unpaid temporal punishment due to sin.  Its sort of like, if I break a window, I confess that I broke the window and am forgiven, but I still need to pay for (or replace) the window.  If I don't pay for or replace the window, God's justice demands that the window be paid for, so even though I'm forgiven I still end up paying for the window.  If I do my penance by paying for it during this life, then no payment is needed in the next.  If I end up in purgatory, someone can still pay for the window for me, but that person needs to be able to pay for it (church militant).

So there are two concepts - the act of forgiveness (granted by confession) and the payment of debt (fulfilled by penance or indulgences or suffering in Purgatory).  In this way, indulgences do not grant forgiveness for sins, but rather remit debt.

I guess another question would be, is one in purgatory doing penance?

To my understanding, not in the strictest sense of the term.  They are suffering because they have not satisfied their temporal debt.  It is much better to do penance in this life (or gain indulgences) because the Church makes them available to us.  Some have said its as if the Church were offering a huge table covered with jewels to pay back our debt while we still live, we just need to do some very simple acts to receive it.  Once we die, payment becomes very very hard and painful.  Kind of like running up credit card debt.

I hope that, if I have proclaimed heresy, that my fellow Catholics would correct me.  I also pray that it has made things a little more clear for you.  Its like (what I understand to be) the Orthodox belief in Theosis after death, where you are placed in the presence of God and all of your evil works are burned away by his holiness, yet you are still saved.  The sins you committed cause stains on your soul that must be purified before entering into the beatific vision.  It is God's justice, and the fact that the Church Militant can pray for you and gain indulgences for you is God's mercy.

See CCC 1471-1479

God Bless you.

Andre

[chestertonrules]

Chestertonrules, what does St Clement's letter to the Corinthian church on sedition arising within them have to do with this subject?

The church in Rome (under St Callistus I), along with the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches exercised economia in relaxing the Apostolic discipline for confession (in reference to what we call "mortal" sins). They issued a formal decree.

You said this:

Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.

Which is flat out wrong.  All men sin after baptism.

Did you make that up, or did someone else?

Clement, the Pope at the time, clearly proves you wrong in his letter written around 90 AD.

Sorry Chestertonrules, see my post to Catholica. I did not mean for any sin, such as venial. As Catholica has pointed out, venial sins are forgiven by the Lord.

However, it was common in the early church for auricular confession to be made on ones death bed. Which would not be necessary for venial sins which are forgiven.

Anyway, basically without penance there was excommunication.

No problem, but I don't think it ever applied to mortal sins either.  The Church, as the vehicle of God's mercy, is forgiving.

As always, we are not to receive communion unless we have confessed mortal sins.

The Church has always been thrilled to welcome sinners back into the fold.

[chestertonrules]

Ok, you'll have to explain the meaning of your terminology somewhat for me.
What do you mean by "gaining indulgences"?  

If indulgences aren't related to forgiveness, then why indulge the sinner in penance?

I guess another question would be, is one in purgatory doing penance?
[/quote]

And indulgence applies to the temporal consequences of sin.

ie., damaged relationships, guilt, separation from God,

Here's a great article:

What an indulgence is not
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

What an indulgence is
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

Much more here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

[Rob, PGK]

Chestertonrules, what does St Clement's letter to the Corinthian church on sedition arising within them have to do with this subject?

The church in Rome (under St Callistus I), along with the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches exercised economia in relaxing the Apostolic discipline for confession (in reference to what we call "mortal" sins). They issued a formal decree.

You said this:

Before this time the church excommunicated those who did not remain sinless after baptism.

Which is flat out wrong.  All men sin after baptism.

Did you make that up, or did someone else?

Clement, the Pope at the time, clearly proves you wrong in his letter written around 90 AD.

Sorry Chestertonrules, see my post to Catholica. I did not mean for any sin, such as venial. As Catholica has pointed out, venial sins are forgiven by the Lord.

However, it was common in the early church for auricular confession to be made on ones death bed. Which would not be necessary for venial sins which are forgiven.

Anyway, basically without penance there was excommunication.

No problem, but I don't think it ever applied to mortal sins either.  The Church, as the vehicle of God's mercy, is forgiving.

As always, we are not to receive communion unless we have confessed mortal sins.

The Church has always been thrilled to welcome sinners back into the fold.

I don't know about "always" chesterton. We had a while there where you only got one chance at confession and penance was so hard, people just waited to get baptized until they were on their deathbed.

[chestertonrules]

I don't know about "always" chesterton. We had a while there where you only got one chance at confession and penance was so hard, people just waited to get baptized until they were on their deathbed.

I guess I'm not familiar with the era you are referring to.

That sounds more like something that would be attributed to Donatists.

[LightHammer]

Scriptural basis for purgatory?

[Rob, PGK]

Scriptural basis for purgatory?

From a different thread -

Jesus didn't mention "purgatory" because it's a new word. The word purgatory is just another word to describe Abraham's Bosom. Jesus didn't spend a whole lot of time on that because he was dealing with good, God fearing Jews, just like himself. They all new all of this stuff because they had grown up as Jews. Are you following me? When Jesus, Peter, Paul, or anyone else in the Bible is talking to someone or some people, they aren't speaking to you or me, they are speaking specifically to the audience they are addressing.

According to the beliefs of Jews like Jesus, when you die you go to Sheol. Sheol got translated to Hades, and from that to Hell. Are you still with me?

Sheol is divided into 2 parts. One part is for the punishment of sins, the other part is a place where you go to be "purged" of your sins so that you may enter Heaven sinless. "Purged" as in Purgatory. This is where that comes from. The reason it isn't "biblical" is because it didn't need to be, everyone at the time already knew it.

It's these and other reasons why "Sola Scriptura" just does not work as a basis for a belief system.

[winsome]

Scriptural basis for purgatory?

Purgatory is about sanctification. It is about the consequences of sin not the punishment of the sins themselves. We are born into a sinful condition. "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

[chosenone]

the time that we have on earth is the time for allowing God to work in us. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we get another chance or in any place such as this. We die, we will be raised and judged and will go to heaven or hell. Its a man made place.

[winsome]

the time that we have on earth is the time for allowing God to work in us. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we get another chance or in any place such as this. We die, we will be raised and judged and will go to heaven or hell. Its a man made place.

So you didn't read anything I wrote, just gave the standard Protestant knee-jerk reaction.

Try going through the post. There is plenty of scripture there.

I'll give you one bit here:
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cot 3:13-15)

Where will we - after we die - suffer loss, as through fire, but still be saved?
Not Hell because there is no escape from hell.
Not Heaven because we don't suffer loss in heaven.
So there must be somewhere else.

[mclees8]

the time that we have on earth is the time for allowing God to work in us. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we get another chance or in any place such as this. We die, we will be raised and judged and will go to heaven or hell. Its a man made place.

So you didn't read anything I wrote, just gave the standard Protestant knee-jerk reaction.

Try going through the post. There is plenty of scripture there.

I'll give you one bit here:
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cot 3:13-15)

Where will we - after we die - suffer loss, as through fire, but still be saved?
Not Hell because there is no escape from hell.
Not Heaven because we don't suffer loss in heaven.
So there must be somewhere else.

Have you ever heard about the judgment seat of Christ. 2nd Cor 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ  that everyone receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done whether it be good or bad. 
This is not purgatory but it is where we will suffer loss

God bless

[mclees8]

Also Abraham's bosom is not purgatory or a place of purging for sin. It is a place of comforting. Vines bible dictionary call it a place of honor. The beggar was comforted in Abraham's bosom while the insensitive  rich man was tormented in hell.

God bless

[Catholica]

Have you ever heard about the judgment seat of Christ. 2nd Cor 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ  that everyone receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done whether it be good or bad. 

Yes, and the recompense for the evil works of those judged saved is paid out in Purgatory.

[Rob, PGK]

Also Abraham's bosom is not purgatory or a place of purging for sin. It is a place of comforting. Vines bible dictionary call it a place of honor. The beggar was comforted in Abraham's bosom while the insensitive  rich man was tormented in hell.

God bless

Well I'm sorry that Vine's Bible Dictionary doesn't go into enough detail or try to explain early Judaic beliefs. Both places, "hell" and "Abraham's Bosom" are contained in Sheol. If you were a good and faithful servant, then I am sure there is comforting going on in "Abraham's Bosom," but if you've still got a little stank on you from your life, you've got to get it off before you get to Heaven.

[mclees8]

Have you ever heard about the judgment seat of Christ. 2nd Cor 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ  that everyone receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done whether it be good or bad. 

Yes, and the recompense for the evil works of those judged saved is paid out in Purgatory.

Well I guess we are all going there then. Maybe I will see you there brother.

[Catholica]

Well I guess we are all going there then. Maybe I will see you there brother.

Not all, just those saved who are not yet perfected.  And I hope to see you there too, if not there, then in heaven.

[chestertonrules]

the time that we have on earth is the time for allowing God to work in us. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that we get another chance or in any place such as this. We die, we will be raised and judged and will go to heaven or hell. Its a man made place.

Purgatory is not a second chance, it is just the final cleansing that makes us holy and enables us to see God.

Our eternal destiny is determined at death.

[mclees8]

Well I guess we are all going there then. Maybe I will see you there brother.

Not all, just those saved who are not yet perfected.  And I hope to see you there too, if not there, then in heaven.

I googled this. It came from gotquestions.org



Abraham's bosom is referred to only once in the Bible—in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). It was used in the Talmud as a synonym for heaven. The image in the story is of Lazarus reclining at a table leaning on Abraham's breast—as John leaned on Jesus' breast at the Last Supper—at the heavenly banquet. So both paradise and Abraham's bosom are synonymous with heaven.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the "place of the dead

[Catholica]

Abraham's bosom being synonymous with heaven also makes sense, because in scripture I don,t find a middle ground. suffering loss will be a punishment but i don't see it like doing a stint in prison or some dungeon. How long would one have to serve?

god bless

Abraham's bosom is not "synonymous with heaven", as the word "synonym" means two words that mean the same thing or nearly the same thing.  Heaven was not yet open for the Jews - Jesus through his work on the cross opened heaven up.  It is only because heaven is now open and we are able to receive the beatific vision that there is a need for purgatory, because we as sinful people are mostly not ready to be in God's presence when we die.

Another thing to consider is that, when Jesus died, he descended to the dead.  This is in the creed.  The reason he was there was to bring those in Abraham's bosom into heaven.  I don't know why the righteous dead would need to await the great white throne judgment.  They are already judged as saved from hell.

No one knows how long one must remain in purgatory.  It could be very quick, or it could be a long time.  Logically, it makes sense that one who is less pure would spend more time there than one who is more pure, or one who has more attachment to sin would need to spend more time there than one who has less attachment to sin. 

I believe that once one understands what Catholics say that purgatory actually is, they can better understand how to interpret 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, because we will suffer loss, though we will still be saved, but only as through fire.

God Bless.

Andre

[Macrina]

Thank you all for your responses. They do help me better understand how others think on this subject.

Orthodox don't have a purgatory dogma. Such a place would be called hades. And I believe as a Christian what Christ said, that being, "you will never die".
In Orthodoxy the experience is related to the individual's experience of God, since He is THE Fire in heaven (Heb. 12:29) which purifies. But we also relate that "sea of glass" in Revelation (4:6) to fire as well. Since it is the 'great gulf' (as in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus Lk 16:26) between God and us which we must be able to pass through to be near Him.  Another example would be the three youths Neb put in the fire, the Lord being in or of the fire as well.

An Orthodox would relate more to St John Climacus' 'Ladder of Divine Ascent'.
Mainly because we use patristics more than scholastic categories. This may seem vague to some, but Orthodox aren't dogmatic about it. Our only dogma is the Nicea Creed.

With only scripture this whole subject can seem quite confusing. As with scripture by itself there is the tendency to put things within a chronology of time, something God is beyond.
For instance in Revelation, after the dead are judged the book ends with the city in heaven with wicked ones outside of it. Ezekial's vision of the priesthood seems to address this somewhat. Whether the Zadok priests which are able to "go out" for particular persons is literal or similar to prayer by them for others outside the holy city.

It is an interesting subject nonetheless.   

[Catholica]

Happy to help, Macrina!

I think most Catholics out on the web have been well-versed in Biblical apologetics just because the people with whom we share the faith most often are Protestants.  It is rare where we can actually rely on someone believing in Sacred Tradition, mortal vs. venial sin, and the purification of the afterlife where we can just relax and speak as friends.

I learned some things about the Orthodox way of looking at things through an Eastern Catholic priest's podcast.  He really does a good job of sharing the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy (as still retained in Eastern Catholic rites) as well as add perspective how, in almost all ways, the way the Orthodox convey theology is really just a different perspective from ours.  When we get down to it, the same truth (for the most part!)

I pray that the Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches will be reunited someday soon.  How glorious that would be!

God Bless,

Andre

[LightHammer]

Scriptural basis for purgatory?

From a different thread -

Jesus didn't mention "purgatory" because it's a new word. The word purgatory is just another word to describe Abraham's Bosom. Jesus didn't spend a whole lot of time on that because he was dealing with good, God fearing Jews, just like himself. They all new all of this stuff because they had grown up as Jews. Are you following me? When Jesus, Peter, Paul, or anyone else in the Bible is talking to someone or some people, they aren't speaking to you or me, they are speaking specifically to the audience they are addressing.

According to the beliefs of Jews like Jesus, when you die you go to Sheol. Sheol got translated to Hades, and from that to Hell. Are you still with me?

Sheol is divided into 2 parts. One part is for the punishment of sins, the other part is a place where you go to be "purged" of your sins so that you may enter Heaven sinless. "Purged" as in Purgatory. This is where that comes from. The reason it isn't "biblical" is because it didn't need to be, everyone at the time already knew it.

It's these and other reasons why "Sola Scriptura" just does not work as a basis for a belief system.

But the Truths of today should be the Truths of the past as well seeing nothing is new under the sun. I've never read anything in Jewish texts about a place of purification. Sola Scriptura isn't at fault here. It is those in power who think they can create any belief from any reasoning and it is absolute.

[Macrina]

Happy to help, Macrina!

I think most Catholics out on the web have been well-versed in Biblical apologetics just because the people with whom we share the faith most often are Protestants.  It is rare where we can actually rely on someone believing in Sacred Tradition, mortal vs. venial sin, and the purification of the afterlife where we can just relax and speak as friends.

I learned some things about the Orthodox way of looking at things through an Eastern Catholic priest's podcast.  He really does a good job of sharing the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy (as still retained in Eastern Catholic rites) as well as add perspective how, in almost all ways, the way the Orthodox convey theology is really just a different perspective from ours.  When we get down to it, the same truth (for the most part!)

I pray that the Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches will be reunited someday soon.  How glorious that would be!

God Bless,

Andre

LOL I think Christians in general should just relax more. And yeah, it is rare especially on the web were there is so much fussing going on between 'believers'.

It has been an honor for me to speak with knowledgeable Catholics online at times. Personally I could never have sorted out all that Roman catholicism entails without their help.
Even rarer is the Catholic who has a complete understanding of both sides. I actually found one once or twice. Their understanding was so clear, you would not have known whether you were talking to an Orthodox or a Roman Catholic.

Many an Orthodox are of the opinion that if it were not for Vatican II things wouldn't be so muddled.

For us average laity, things are the more complicated by disunity. For instance one of my children, who is Orthodox, wants to marry a Roman Catholic . I'm still waiting to see if and how that will work out. I know exceptions can be made. But I also know my bishop and that he is going to require a full immersion baptism at the very least. He's required it of Russian Orthodox who were only sprinkled in multitudes in Russia. So if even an Orthodox can't get by with sprinkling, I don't think a RC will.

God grant you many years Andre.