We all do, at least implicitly. And I would wager that if more people understood what the Catholic Church means when it speaks of purgatory, they would find themselves compelled to also acknowledge its existence.
Too many people speak of purgatory as a “place,” as they do heaven and hell. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it:
All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned … The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire (1 Cor.3:15, 1 Peter 1:7) …
This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” (2 Maccabees 12:46). From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God … (CCC 1030-32)
Purgatory is a process, a process of cleansing. I go into this in more depth in The God Who is Love,but let me give a few points:
Jesus taught, “from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man” (Mk.7:21-23). Now hopefully we Christians are not committing murder but the unkind thoughts or harsh judgments we harbor toward others (the roots of murder) may still be very much with us. These are not acts so great as to completely severe our union with Christ, but they do inhibit the flow of His life within us. When we shed our bodies at death do the impurities, the imperfections in our capacity to love, just disappear? If they are in the heart, and we take that with us, then no.
Every Christian I know believes that we will be “perfect” in heaven. No more sinful actions and no more sinful movements of the heart. And we’re right to believe so, Scripture teaches that “nothing unclean shall enter” the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev.21:27). So if the vast majority of us have imperfect hearts/souls at the moment of death, and yet we will be perfect when fully united to God in heaven, a cleansing must take place! It’s implicit in the understanding of all Christians; the Catholic Church is simply drawing our attention to it.
There’s a lot more to be said. If you’re curious you might want to check out Chapter 6 of The God Who is Love, “Confession and the Ongoing Nature of Salvation.” Let me give the final word in this post to my Anglican brother, C.S. Lewis:
Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break [our] heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.” “It may hurt, you know” – “Even so, sir.”[1]
[1] Lewis, C.S. The Joyful Christian (New York: McMillan Publishing Company, 1984), p.222.
NOTE: This post originally appeared at <https://justacatholic.blogspot.com/2012/09/every-christian-believes-in-purgatory.html>. Reproduced here with permission.
This feels like one of those disingenuous, presumptive attempts to speak on behalf of others that I more regularly see atheists and universalists try out: “Don’t you see, I just believe in one less god than you?” “Don’t you see, you’re all saying the same thing as me!” “Don’t you see, you all REALLY do believe in Purgatory.” It’s an attempt to manipulate agreement by ignoring significant core disagreements.
If you talked to most Christians, they certainly would believe that God purifies us of both the guilt and taint of sin. But if you talked to most Protestants and Evangelicals, I’m sure it would not take the shape of belief in a state of existence where the faithful work off the taint of their own sin through penitential acts or whose taint of sin may be worked off by proxy through penitential acts performed by the living. The Lutheran Smalcald Articles even state categorically “Therefore purgatory, and every solemnity, rite, and commerce connected with it, is to be regarded as nothing but a specter of the devil. For it conflicts with the chief article that only Christ, and not the works of men, are to help souls.” That is not an insignificant objection.
Obviously the author needs to respond rather than me but I do have a thought here–we as Catholics are taught that those things which are not of God yet within us when we die are cleansed from us during the purging period. We also are taught that we will know we are already saved and that those things in us which are impure are being removed by God, not that we “work them off” somehow. Having been evangelical for 35 years, I was taught in those days that “Jesus paid it all.” I still believe it. Yet we constantly prayed for other “saved” people when misfortunes or sufferings occurred to them while here on earth, that God would either remove the pain or bring His purposes through it. If the sin was already lifted, and we believe it was and is, then what was the possible reason God still allowed us to suffer here on earth or to be “chastened” as we called it? It was for our sanctification (in other words the act of God continually making us more holy) or that of others. The only difference between the Protestant and Catholic belief is that we believe that process continues for the Faithful even after death, if that person is not at that place of total sanctification or purity yet, and that will be most of us I think. For Luther to refer to those prayers and intercessions for the Faithful dead as “of the devil” is quite missing the point here, unless he is able to explain why those with saving faith in Christ, or as Catholics call it, being in the “state of grace,” still suffer, sometimes with great agony in fact, and then eventually die, which are all consequences of that sin nature which is still part of us all, even after we accept the Cross of Christ through faith and baptism. I think it is he who is being disingenuous here.
Trying to justify Purgatory by invoking theodicy seems to me like a nonstarter. Why does God still allow the faithful to suffer? Because he makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both the faithful and unfaithful, just and unjust. We may be purified of the guilt and taint of sin, but we’re still human beings living in a fallen world. I hope I’m just misreading an implication that people only suffer because they are sinners, because that is treading dangerously into “who sinned, him or his parents” territory.
Sanctification, in Lutheran theology, is an ongoing way of life lived in this world and is distinct from justification, insofar as while our sanctification derives from our justification our justification does not derive from our sanctification. Sanctification isn’t about purification… It’s about doing what is right and pleasing to God. Even then, it is less of a human effort and more of a gift of God’s grace in itself.
As one can see just from this exchange, underlying the issue of Purgatory is a whole iceberg of issues surrounding sanctification, justification, theodicy, the nature of the world and life in it… It is disingenuous to just say blithely that we just all already believe in the same thing.
Gosh Cory, “disingenuous” does not seem fair when I clearly stated that my intention was to offer “a few points,” and twice referred interested readers to the larger treatment given in my book, “The God Who is Love: Explaining Christianity From Its Center.” Richard’s responses are much in line with my own thinking, and I am grateful to him for sharing his thoughts (which I was unable to do from my work computer).
To clarify, Cory – your own words indicate an agreement with the MAIN tenant of purgatory as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “If you talked to most Christians, they certainly would believe that God purifies us of both the guilt and taint of sin.” That is the undisputed heart of the Catholic belief. You take issue with related matters of Catholic theology such as eternal vs. temporal punishment; but like the (Anglican) C.S. Lewis, you appear to agree that God must purify the soul so that it can fully participate in the life of heaven. Lewis obviously did not agree with Catholic theology in all points, and yet Lewis recognized his belief in a post-death purification as being sufficient for professing his belief in “purgatory.” I stand by the first sentence of my reflection where I said that all Christians believe in this purification, this purgation, of the soul, “at least IMPLICITLY.” To equate my claim to the atheist claim, “I just believe in one less god than you,” is to compare apples and oranges. You and I do not believe contrary things; we both affirm that the soul must be purified (the process Catholics call purgatory). We disagree on particular points regarding purgatory.
As an aside: I think that your likening of Richard’s comments about suffering to “theodicy” are quite over the top. Yes, God does cause his sun to shine on both the faithful and the unfaithful; but Scripture is equally clear that God, in His providence, makes use of suffering to purify us – see passages such as 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Col. 1:24; Heb. 12:7, 9-10; and 1 Pet. 1:6-7.
Where you seem to be erring in interpreting the beliefs of those who disagree with you is in the assertion of a post-death purification. You asked (rhetorically) in your article “When we shed our bodies at death do the impurities, the imperfections in our capacity to love, just disappear?” And you took it upon yourself to give the Catholic answer, “no.” A Protestant or an Evangelical might be more inclined to answer in the affirmative: “yes.”
Lutheran theology, for example, sees sanctification as a lifelong endeavour. It has no end-goal. It is not a work that begins in life to continue after death until one is sufficiently sanctified. It is a way of life in this world that grows ever deeper in God’s grace and will. It does end with death in the sense that life ends with death. It’s not “complete”… It just stops, because life stops. That sanctification is distinct from justification, which is wholly the work of grace alone through Christ alone on the Cross alone. With such significant differences it seems pithy to say the simple belief that humans are in want of saving is sufficient to connect all of Christendom with the concept of Purgatory.
So again, while it may be admirable (in a sense) to try and find some common ground with some shallowly similar terminology, it covers a whole suite of issues, theologies, definitions, and entire worldviews that are very dissimilar. You disliked my analogy to atheists (apparently the one to universalism passed muster), but your assertion had that same air of imperious claim-staking on other people’s differences in viewpoint. Atheists are trying to “get one over” by ignoring sincere differences in why I believe in Christ and not other deities, trying to interpret my worldview simply as a function of their own. Likewise, you’re trying to “get one over” by ignoring sincere differences in the entire concept of justification and sanctification, trying to interpret other Christian worldviews as a function of your own.
As for theodicy, I don’t know why that was over the top. That was pretty much exactly what he said. He is trying to grapple with the question of why the faithful suffer if they have been justified. His response was that this suffering must serve a purpose of purification. My response was that this suffering has no purpose to speak of.
Cory, I sincerely appreciate your comments.
In my previous post I did not attempt to address every point you had raised, as my schedule just honestly precludes me doing so; my silence on something is not tantamount to agreement, though. (I do not interpret your silence on the four passages of Scripture regarding the purifying value of suffering as you conceding my point. I remain understandably curious, however, how you continue to characterize the view shared by Richard and me as “theodicy” when these four passages are so perspicuous, but that is getting away from the immediate topic.) My thanks to Elizabeth for covering many points I would have liked to.
I assure you that there is no attempt to “get one over” by ignoring differences in the “entire concept of justification and sanctification,” since I go into both
issues in the chapter of my book to which I twice directed readers. (For the record, I too recognize sanctification, or what I would call the ongoing work of justification, as spanning one’s entire life.) I think you are expecting way too much from a short reflection that I drew from a three year old blog post and fired off to my editor at Epic Pew before rushing off to work Monday morning.
You have analyzed me correctly when you say that I interpret the beliefs of all
Christians to entail a post-death purification. In response to my rhetorical
question whether the impurities and imperfections “just disappear” at the point
of death, you state that some Protestants may in fact answer “yes.” Now, I know this is going to sound horrible; but I think that if you honestly reflect upon the matter, you will have to change your answer. Here’s why.
Were you to debate with an atheist, you would surely remind him that nothing simply “pops” into and out of existence. Something comes to be, or is annihilated, as the result of either as a direct expression of the Divine will or a natural process (each step of which is held in existence by the Divine will). You seem to agree with me that “nothing unclean shall enter” the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27) and that uncleanness is not a matter of the body, but of the soul (Mk. 7:21-23). So if a soul is not completely “sanctified,” if it is not completely free of impurities at the moment of death, then those impurities are removed from the soul. You asserted that they “just disappear;” but, as I trust you see upon reflection, nothing *just* disappears. If the impurities are removed then it is by an act of the Divine will. This purifying action, which makes it possible for the soul to enter into perfect union with God, is what I have identified as the core of the Catholic belief in purgatory. (As previously noted, C.S. Lewis also recognized such a belief as sufficient to posit a belief in “purgatory.”)
I trust that you agree with the author of Hebrews that we are meant to share
God’s *own* holiness (12:10), the “holiness without which no one will see the
Lord” (12:14). If we do not possess that holiness at death, if sanctification
has not reached that end, then something must happen to the soul so that it can see God. The alternative would be to reject Hebrews, Revelation, and the rest of Scripture. To say that impurities *just* disappear would be to deny the use of the reason that God gave us. You are an obviously intelligent, Christian
gent; so I would never accuse you of doing either. Rather, I think that if you
consider those things that you must, as in intellectual Christian, already
believe, you will discover that you *implicitly* believe in a passive, post-death
purification of the soul…which is the essential feature in the Catholic belief
in purgatory. (And here we are back at the first sentence of my little
reflection.)
“Now, I know this is going to sound horrible; but I think that if you honestly reflect upon the matter, you will have to change your answer. Here’s why… if you consider those things that you must, as in intellectual Christian, already believe, you will discover that you *implicitly* believe in a passive, post-death purification of the soul…which is the essential feature in the Catholic belief in purgatory.”
Actually no, this wouldn’t change my answer because there is one more fundamental assumption being made here: belief in an immortal soul.
To the point, I can’t believe in a post-death purification of the soul because I don’t believe that the soul survives death, whatever a “soul” even is. My belief is that the person dies with the body and dissolves into a state of nothingness (Sheol) from which they are passively and bodily resurrected. There was no orthodox concept of a soul in Judaism (Pharisees believed in an immortal one, Sadducees did not), that dispute likely would have carried over into the early Church with its mix of different ethnic groups, and only thing confessed in the Ecumenical Creeds is a bodily resurrection. So I quite literally believe that all that taint of sin dies in the grave and that we are resurrected with Christ to share in His perfection. That was, quite literally, what Jesus did in the drama of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Sanctification is not a process that is “rewarded” because it is a drama played out in life, for the benefit of life.
Now I will grant that this belief is not widely articulated by Protestants and Evangelicals, but that’s only because Gnosticism is Christianity’s most persistent and popular heresy. I only admit the possibility of a mortal soul (as opposed to an immortal soul) because I don’t want to swing too far over in the other direction against Gnosticism. But even then, I couldn’t even tell you what a “soul” is supposed to be.
(BTW, my wife wanted to add in here that she believes that our purification happens instantaneously at the death of the flesh, and that she does believe in an immortal soul)
“I do not interpret your silence on the four passages of Scripture regarding the purifying value of suffering as you conceding my point. I remain understandably curious, however, how you continue to characterize the view shared by Richard and me as “theodicy” when these four passages are so perspicuous, but that is getting away from the immediate topic.”
I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on my pointing out that Richard raised the theodical problem to justify Purgatory. That is exactly what he did: he’s questioning why suffering happens. That is theodicy.
I didn’t say that suffering couldn’t be used for the purposes of purifying and refining (in this life), but that is a secondary use. It’s like how I CAN use a knife to open a bottlecap, but that’s not the knife’s purpose. In the case of suffering, it has no actual purpose. It’s a flaw, a problem in need of solving, a product of the world’s falleness.
“I think you are expecting way too much from a short reflection that I drew from a three year old blog post and fired off to my editor at Epic Pew before rushing off to work Monday morning.”
Perhaps so, but again, there seems to be little reflection in the article one way or another that other Christians might have substantive, sincere differences of worldview from your own, on which hinge all the issues that culminate in the doctrine of Purgatory. It comes off as presumptive. I thank you for your courtesy and I apologize for the strength of my rhetoric… I think you are certainly sincere in wanting to evangelize for something you believe is good and true… but when the Smalcald Articles say “that purgatory stuff is of the devil” it is also a sincere difference in total worldview.
Cory, I must say that with the denial of the spiritual soul you have taken me completely by surprise. After your mention of Lutheran theology in a few of your posts, I wrongly concluded that you were Lutheran. The position you are laying claim to is quite far out of the mainstream, as you clearly know. I must point out that your explanation of Sheol as the physical grave is innacurate. And yes, while the Sadducees and Pharisees disagreed on the existence of the spiritual soul, Jesus was quite clear as to the existence of the spiritual soul. I too recognize your sincerity. I have a new book coming out before Christmas where I go into the Jewish roots of the Catholic and historical Christian belief in the existence of the soul, Sheol, purgatory, suffering, as well as justification and a host of other matters. If you would be interested in seeing me express my thoughts more systematically, I would be happy to send you a copy. You are welcome to send me your address at skapler@explainingchristianity.com
Here is a glimpse of the content: https://justacatholic.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-has-this-blog-been-so-dead.html
An outright rejection of the concept of a soul might be a little beyond the pale of most Christians, but it’s not incoherent with Lutheran theology. As I mentioned, the Ecumenical Creeds make no mention of a soul in the sense we’re talking (the Athanasian mentions a “reasonable soul” which is basically the mind) and does mention the resurrection of the dead. The Augsburg Confession only has one, non-relevant mention of the word “soul”. The Smalcald Articles only talk about souls at length in order to condemn belief in Purgatory and all the abuses that stemmed from that belief. Martin Luther himself affirmed belief that the soul “sleeps” in death until resurrected, which is basically the same thing as saying there is no immortal soul as far as the effect is concerned (and is basically the same thing as Sheol when you get beyond the metaphorical language, which makes sense given that Luther was originally an Old Testament scholar). And for Luther, that was very much connected with a disbelief in Purgatory. Here’s a nice pro-Catholic, anti-Luther summary of it: https://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2008/02/martin-luthers-heretical-notion-of-soul.html
The short of it is, belief in a soul is adaphoria. Upholding the principles of orthodox Christianity doesn’t depend on it. Appealing to belief in an immortal soul to justify belief in Purgatory is a nonstarter because the existence of an immortal soul has yet to be definitively demonstrated. Again, there are wildly different worldviews at work here to which blithe assertions about us all really believing Catholic doctrine deep down is doing a disservice.
“I didn’t say that suffering couldn’t be used for the purposes of purifying and refining (in this life), but that is a secondary use. It’s like how I CAN use a knife to open a bottlecap, but that’s not the knife’s purpose. In the case of suffering, it has no actual purpose. It’s a flaw, a problem in need of solving, a product of the world’s falleness.”
If suffering has no purpose, other than accidental, why would Paul state, ” that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, (Phil. 3:10)”.
If we cannot suffer one for another in this life then what does Paul mean by, “So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory (Eph. 3:13);” or by, “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. (2Cor. 1:6-7)”
And if our suffer has no eternal purpose then why would Paul state, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,(Col.1:1).”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. None of those passages indicate that suffering was invented by God for the purposes of refining and purifying us. If that were the case, then if I were Paul I might be pissed off that God couldn’t have invented something a little easier and if I were God I might be pissed off that Paul is depriving other Christians of the opportunity and obligation to be thusly purified. The system you seem to be supporting doesn’t make any sense.
But if suffering doesn’t have a purpose… If it’s just a horrible thing that happens in this fallen world that God CAN make use of… then none of those problems exist.
If you do a simple word search on the biblical term “suffer”, and do not recognize that God utilizes suffering for His greater glory, then you are just being disingenuous in your comments.
I’m hoping that people are just missing the finer point of what I said and aren’t just being disingenuous. I did not say that God couldn’t USE suffering. What I said was that suffering does not have a purpose IN AND OF ITSELF. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the Bible, you can see that suffering is a CONSEQUENCE of the world’s Fall. Suffering was not an original part of the plan. It is a flaw, a defect, a problem in need of solving. Yes God CAN use it, God CAN make good come of it (just like how, say, good things did come of WWII but there is no sense in which WWII was a good thing), but that is a secondary use. Suffering by itself has no purpose.
Cory, please accept my apology. In my experience, psychopannychia seemed solely within the purview of those who denied the Trinity and Trinitarian baptism – and thus, truly are “beyond the pale.” Let’s chalk the title of my brief reflection up to oratorical hyperbole , the kind our Lord and Paul were wont to use on occasion (Mt. 5:29-20; Mt. 23:8-10; 1 Tim. 1:12-13).
You leave me with so many question! If there is no existence of the soul apart from the body, why does Hebrews say that we are called to the “heavenly Jerusalem,” to “thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly… to God, the Judge of all, to the *spirits* of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 12:22-24)? Why, when John was summoned to heaven, did he see “the *souls* of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” (Rev. 6:9), and God’s throne surrounded by elders (Rev. 4:4), a term only used in Scripture in reference to human beings? You mentioned, with what seemed to be approval, the Creeds of the Ecumenical Councils and the Athanasian Creed; and yet you disregard the fact that Athanasius and the other men that the Spirit made use of to fashion those creeds explicitly taught the immortal existence of the soul and the heavenly intercession of the saints. When the Apostles’ Creed spoke of Christ descending into “Hades” (Greek), or “Inferno” (Latin), those terms referred to the abode of the souls of the dead and not simply the physical grave. Must we not understand texts as their original authors intended?
As I said, so many questions. I sincerely hope that the Lord allows our paths to cross at some point in the future so that we can really begin to unpack our different viewpoints for one another. That’s a conversation I would really enjoy. (These comm boxes are frustrating – misunderstandings are too frequent, and we seem to talk past one another.)
I leave the final word to you. (And please, if you ever decide to take me up on that book offer, just shoot me an email.) God bless you, Cory.
“Let’s chalk the title of my brief reflection up to oratorical hyperbole”
I was already doing that 😉
“You leave me with so many question!…”
I generally don’t try to derive hierarchies of Heavenly beings from mystical, poetic, largely metaphorical passages of Scripture (“largely metaphorical” as necessary in attempts to communicate in human language and concepts a mystical experience of places outside of “place”, times outside of “time”, and beings beyond any concept of “being” that we have). I don’t even think that was the point of Revelation.
“You mentioned, with what seemed to be approval, the Creeds of the Ecumenical Councils and the Athanasian Creed; and yet you disregard the fact that Athanasius and the other men that the Spirit made use of to fashion those creeds explicitly taught the immortal existence of the soul and the heavenly intercession of the saints.”
Like I said, it’s adaphoria. They’re welcome to believe in it, but they didn’t put it in the creeds as a requirement of Christian orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Church actually overstepped its authority to declare it a serious heresy.
“When the Apostles’ Creed spoke of Christ descending into “Hades” (Greek), or “Inferno” (Latin), those terms referred to the abode of the souls of the dead and not simply the physical grave.”
Hades is essentially the same as Sheol, which when you get beyond the metaphorical language is essentially a condition in which the dead are dead (I don’t think the difference between being dead and being a silent, insensible shade listlessly sleeping through a dark underworld to be much of a difference beyond rhetorical flourish). When I recite the version that says Jesus descended into Hell, what I take that to mean is that Jesus entered into a state of total separation or alienation from the Father. I know a whole mythology has been invented about the “harrowing of Hell” but I don’t see any particular reason to believe it, however cinematic it may be. Modern versions of the creeds tend to use the phrase “descended into the dead” which is essentially the same thing. I actually prefer “descended into Hell” because it more effectively communicates how cut off Jesus was from the Father in His suffering for our sins, in turn communicating how triumphal the Resurrection is: not even Hell itself can separate us from the Love of God.
“As I said, so many questions. I sincerely hope that the Lord allows our paths to cross at some point in the future so that we can really begin to unpack our different viewpoints for one another.”
Who knows what the future may bring *shrug*
Your objection sounds less like a difference in principle and more like an assertion of the typical misunderstanding that somehow our actions “merit” sanctification. Certainly there are doctrinal differences at work, but in principle, I think the point is that purgatory is utterly Christian through and through.
There’s a difference between arguing that Purgatory is a reasonable Christian belief and arguing that all Christians REALLY believe in Purgatory, even if they think they don’t.
Is it really so that purgatory after death involves “acts” whereby the faithful “work” off their sin? I don’t think that is what we believe. The time for acts that would be helpful in this regard is during our earthly life (read St Teresa’s “The Interior Castle” or another work on spiritual growth). As far as I understand it the belief in purgatory is belief in a PASSIVE purification more intense than any that we could bear during earthly life, a refining in the fire of the Divine Love.
I have had conversations with protestants who disagreed with purgatory in which they acknowledged that they DO believe that ONLY the perfect can be in heaven, and they DO also believe that Christians who die imperfect (as we know ourselves to be) can go to heaven, and they were at a loss to explain why they would object to a belief that the soul of the faithful who is imperfect undergoes a purification thanks to God’s just mercy, before entering heaven. In this light, when looked at rationally, the belief in some kind of purification of the soul before entering heaven did not seem so objectionable to them.
“Is it really so that purgatory after death involves “acts” whereby the faithful “work” off their sin?”
Yes. That was the whole thing about indulgences that ticked off the Lutherans so much. Sure there were the rampant abuses by which Italy was extracting funds from Germany through exploitation of indulgences, but that was only a natural outcome of the problem that indulgences posed to begin with: a systematization and externalization of what can only ever be the internal condition of a person’s relationship with Christ. After that initial crime, charging a few gold coins for it is relatively minor.
“they were at a loss to explain why they would object to a belief that the soul of the faithful who is imperfect undergoes a purification thanks to God’s just mercy, before entering heaven”
Such is the sorry state of Protestant theological education I suppose, which is why we’re getting pilfered on one side by Catholics and on the other by Evangelicals (with atheists bringing up a third front). They should have learned in Sunday School that the reason we imperfect creatures are permitted to stand before a perfect God is wholly because of the sacrifice of Christ.
The whole point of indulgences is that the living are capable of meritorious acts (such as the acts by which indulgences are obtained) however the dead are NOT capable of acts that would help them. They are passively purified. The principle behind indulgences is that goods can be shared among the faithful in the treasury of the Church (the original form of this being the faithful trusting that the merits of the suffering of the martyrs could be shared with them in charity to remit the temporal punishment due to their own sin), and this principle is disputed by protestants, who see the sacrifice on Calvary alone as efficacious and do not see the sufferings of the members of the Body since that time as relevant (which is a kind of ignorance of St Paul, I would say).
Well said, Elizabeth.
Yes, it is certainly disputed. So again, this reinforces the issue that Protestants and Evangelicals simply aren’t seeing the world the same way Catholics are, and the way they see the world tends to preclude a belief in Purgatory. The way you articulated indulgences doesn’t even make sense… In the treasury of the Church, the blood of Christ would be entirely, egregiously, extravagantly sufficient to purify everyone (even those who do not believe). Indulgences and Purgatory would not be required whatsoever if there was this metaphysical treasury of the Church.
do protestant believe that praying for a sick loved one is pointless since only Christ’s acts can be considered efficacious?
Do you believe that by keeping yourself healthy, it will cure somebody else’s illness?
cory gross, do you know many Christians who believe it is wrong and futile to pray for others. that is the implication I get “… the chief article that only Christ and not the works (prayers for others are works of men) of men, are to help souls”.
I guess I never knew that about protestants, that they do not believe in the efficacy of intercessory prayer. do all protestants reject intercessory prayer?
Protestants don’t reject intercessory prayer. They just don’t think that the PRAYER is what does anything. It’s God who is at work, not my will.
PLEASE Read The Testimony of Gloria Polo at https://testimony-polo.blogspot.com/
Please Discern my understanding on how a person goes
to Heave, purgatory or hell
In September, of 1995, my wife, my daughter and I
went to a Marian conference in Chicago. While we there listening to the
speakers, a thought came to my mind about how souls go to hell. Now no one was
talking about this subject, for some reason I just started thinking about it.
Before I go on, I must tell you that I have read several messages that state
that God does not send souls to hell, that the soul sends itself to hell, and I
had wondered how this could happen. Well as I said, I was thinking about this,
and it is like this, darkness is sin and light is God. Now if a person lives in
a room or cave of compete darkness and has been there for a long time, when
that person comes into the light, he or she cannot stand the light so the
person goes back in to the dark room. This is like a soul that has lived in
sin, when the soul dies, it cannot stand to look at God, Who is pure Light, so
the soul drives itself into hell. Now the next day I was praying before Jesus
in the blessed sacrament, the Holy Eucharist, when I began to think of this
again and it was like this, a soul who lives in sin lives in darkness, but if
the soul, while still living would let some light in, then when the soul died
it would be like a person, who was in a dark room but let some light in. So
then when the person went into the Light, he or she would be able to squint
their eyes and look at the light and eventually be able to open their eyes all
the way. This would be a soul that, when it died was not pure enough to go to
heaven, so it went to purgatory. All souls are different some have to squint
harder than others and some can adjust faster to the light and some live always
in the light, their eyes are wide open, these go straight to heaven.
Now
on this same subject I would like to quote the book “The Victorious Queen of
The World”, a spiritual diary of a mystic, Sr. Natalia of Hungary, page 45:
“Once I cried on Jesus shoulder: “Why did you
create hell?” To answer me, Jesus brought me to the judgment of a very sinful
soul, whose sins He forgave. Satan was outraged!
“You are not just! This soul was mine
all his life!” He shouted to Jesus: “This one committed so many sins, while I
committed only one, and You still created hell for me.”
Jesus then with unbound love told
Satan: “Lucifer! Did you ever ask Me for forgiveness?” Then Lucifer, seemingly
beside himself, shouted: “That never! That I will never do!”
Then Jesus turned to me, “You see, if
he could ask Me for forgiveness only once, hell would cease to exist.”
This
is why Jesus asks us to live in constant penance for our sins! We should
meditate on how much He suffered for our sins, in order that we might reach
salvation. We should ask His forgiveness often and love Him for His
unfathomable love!
P.S.
At
the conference in Chicago, September 1995, Christina Gallagher, a visionary, a
mystic, a stigmatist, and a victim soul was there and made very good talk. But
not about how a soul goes to Hell or purgatory. Then in November 1995 I bought
a book “The Sorrow, The Sacrifice, and The Triumph” by Thomas W. Petrisko,
which had just come out in November 1995. This book is about Christina
Gallagher, The Apparitions, Visions, and Prophecies. Now I would like to quote,
what happens at death starting on page 117, “ When release from the body each
soul is destined for immortal life, and its future in eternity is determined by
its state when death takes place and the soul is released from the body. When
the body dies and the soul is released, it suddenly finds itself in the full
light of awareness, able to see itself as it stands in the sight of God. It
then realizes the darkness to which the body’s actions condemned it. The
sensitivity of the soul to the enormity of the Light of God is like the naked
eye before the brilliance of a thousand suns, and the soul in darkness quivers
in pain. It plunges itself into the sea of Hell to avoid the pain of the
enormity of the Light.”
Purgatory
“The soul destined for Purgatory seeks shade at the
level in Purgatory appropriate to its own imperfection. It will automatically
plunge itself into which it failed to atone sufficiently; it will gladly go to
whatever level of Purgatory is necessary, and it will be eternally grateful to
God, in the knowledge that it will one day gain His Presence in Heaven.
Wow!!
Now isn’t this something. Very similar to what came to my mind at the
conference. It confirms that what came to me is true.
2/17/05
Also from The Diary Of St. Faustina, I quote, “After
these words, I received a deeper understanding of divine mercy. Only that soul
who wants [to be damned] will be damned, for God condemns no one.(1452)
Charles, thank you for sharing these thoughts. I think that the analogy that took shape in your mind is very striking. I am unable to comment on the private revelations that you shared, as I have no knowledge of them. I think your analogy is quite good, though!