Roman Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory

- ANNOUNCEMENT -

2009-08-12T18:09:00.000-07:00

I have opened a CafePress online shop.

It features atheism and Christian related products such as t-shirts, postcards, and apparel of all sorts.

The shop is called INTELLIGENT DESIGNS

2006-12-23T20:37:00.000-08:00

PURGATORY:

An Introduction

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; renowned theologian, Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office), which is the most important Vatican curial office, charged with the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated, “My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it.’”[1]

At a class on the Roman Catholic Faith[2] the teacher, Hermano Juan Sandoval was speaking on Purgatory when from the audience a question was asked to the effect of “If Purgatory is such an important doctrine, why didn’t Jesus teach us about it.” In one single breath Hermano Sandoval answered that the doctrine is not found in the Bible but that we could look it up in Matthew 12:32. This contradictory answer is very common because while the dogma is not Biblical the claim is made that the Bible implies it. After the class while discussing the issue with a Roman Catholic class attendee I pointed out that 2nd Maccabees 12:38-46 (the mother of all Purgatory scriptures) was not speaking of Purgatory and the footnotes in the Vatican approved Bible state as much. The response was yes it is speaking of Purgatory, and I repeated the Hermano’s words in saying that we were just taught that the doctrine of Purgatory is not found anywhere in the Bible. The student was kind enough to bring me a list of scriptures that attempt to prove the doctrine of Purgatory from the Bible.

This true story is a good example of the sorts of problems that false doctrines cause. Without any sense of irony the teacher contradicted himself, and the student contradicted the teacher.
This is isogesis, which is when we come to the Scripture with a preconceived notion and try to force the text to say what we want. As opposed to exegesis, which is when we come to the text with a clean slate and we allow the text to tell us what it says.

Our purpose here will be to examine Purgatory proof texts, their footnotes and definitions from Roman Catholic Bibles. The Scriptures will be quoted from the New American Bible and the footnotes come from various other Roman Catholic Bibles and will be footnoted appropriately.

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus”
Romans 8:1

[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), The Ratzinger Report, An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 146
[2] Held at St. Joseph on the Rio Grande Roman Catholic Church, Alb., NM. on March 20th, 2001

2005-11-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

The Apocrypha

General Comments:

The books that are accepted in the Roman Catholic Bible, as opposed to the Jewish or the Protestant, are Baruch, Judith, 1^st & 2^nd Maccabees, Sirach a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Tobit a.k.a. Tobias, Wisdom of Solomon, as well as small additions to Daniel and Esther. Roman Catholicism generally refers to these as deuterocanonical (secondary canon) rather than apocryphal.

Jewish author David Gross explains, “What is the Apocrypha? Popular works of the time that were excluded by the Rabbis because they felt that they contained an excess of non-Jewish influence. Among the works found in the Apocrypha are the two volume Books of the Maccabees, which recount the Hanukkah story. The rabbis, it is explained, opposed their inclusion in the Bible because they glorified war and the descendants of the Hasmoneans, who
after their glorious cleansing of the Temple set out on a path of conquest and succumbed to non-Jewish influence.”[1]

The Encyclopedia Judaica 3:181-186 states, “Apart from Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben Sira), there are no references to these books in talmudic literature…The Talmud includes both Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha under the name Sefarim Hizonim (‘extraneous books’)....according to talmudic tradition (BB 14b) the canon was already fixed at the end of the Persian period. This tradition is clearly repeated by Josephus (Apion, 1:40-41): ‘From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes…the prophets wrote the events of their time. From Artaxerxes to our own time [i.e., the first century C.E.] the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.’ Indeed, as far as is known, apart from the final Hebrew chapters of the Book of Daniel…all the scriptural books antedate the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, from the prologue of Ben Sira’s grandson to his Greek translation of his grandfather’s work, it is clear that the Scriptures had already been translated into Greek in the first generation of the Hasmoneans and that by then the traditional division into three sections—Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa—was accepted. Although Sira’s grandson does indeed speak of ‘the other books,’ scholars failed to recognize this term as an alternate name for the Hagiographa. Philo too was acquainted with this division (Cont. 25) as was Luke (24:44) after him. The testimony of Ben Sira’s grandson, and that , in particular, of Philo and Josephus (who mentions a fixed number of 22 books, Apion 1:38), who used the Septuagint, shows (1) That the Greek-reading Jews knew no division of the Bible, and (2) that the canon of that time is identical with the present canon. Philo also draws a clear distinction between the Holy Scriptures and the books written by the Therapeutae and peculiar to them. It follows that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were always Sefarim Hizonim, i.e., extraneous to the accepted books (βιβλία),
i.e., the Scriptures. It should be added that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls wrote a Pesher (‘interpretation’) only on the works comprised in the known canon….the Apocrypha deal mainly with the struggle against idolatry, believing prophecy to have come to an end (cf. Judith 11:17)…Jerome, who explicitly differentiates between the Holy Scriptures—those in the Hebrew
canon—and Apocrypha, translated both…From the first century to the sixth, Hebrew literature (Talmudic and midrashic) developed as if the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha did not exist…Only in the Middle Ages did the revival of the apocrypha and pseudepigraphical literature begin within the body of Hebrew literature.”

As noted in the above cited quote Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the cannon of
the Jewish Scriptures and stated that they “are justly believed to be divine” he then refers to the chronology of their writings in stating that the “interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was
done in their times.” He then states “It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.”

Artaxerxes reigned from circa 464-424 BC which means that according to Josephus when all of the apocrypha was written they were historical books without then same authority of the Scripture and at a time when for all practical purposes there were no prophets.

It is also important to note that in the 9^th century AD at the Jewish Council of Jamnia the cannon of the Jewish Bible was recorded and it is exactly the same as the Protestant Bible. It is important to understand that this council is not to be likened to, for instance, a Roman Catholic council whose decisions are binding upon all Roman Catholics. “The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.”[2]

If the apocrypha was accepted by Judaism before the time of Christ and by the church in its early years why did the Roman Catholic Church not officially canonized it until the 16^th century? Why do we not find these books in modern day Jewish Bibles?

Judaism treats these books as we would treat a commentary on the Bible. They are viewed as useful but not inspired, or simply as a book that records history. For example the story of Hanukkah comes from the apocrypha and is accepted as a historical document but nothing else. Claiming that the apocrypha is Scripture because it is found in some versions of the
Septuagint-LXX is tantamount to claiming that the footnotes, maps and charts in our modern day Bibles are inspired. Consider that in the New Testament Paul quotes from Greek philosophers but that in no way declares divine approval of Greek philosophy (see Acts 17:28). Also, note that Jude quotes one verse from The Book of Enoch but yet again there is no reason to think that the entire text of Enoch is to be considered as divinely inspired (see Jude 14-15).

In 170 AD, Melito, the bishop of Sardis, made a list of the books of the Old Testament and while he does not mention Esther, he also makes no mention of any of the apocryphal books.[3]

“ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus excluded the Apocrypha. And Philo, a Jewish teacher who lived in the first century, quoted from virtually every Old Testament canonical book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.”[4]

“Professor G.T. Manley notes: ‘[These books] do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX [3rd/2nd centuries B.C.], but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate…’”[5]

“The apocryphal books are not in those most ancient works which allude to the Old Testament Scriptures. For example: (a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C. - A.D. 50), wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never cited the Apocrypha, nor did he even mention these documents. (b) Josephus (A.D. 37-95) rejected them. He wrote: ‘We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...’ By combining several Old Testament narratives into a ‘book,’ the thirty-nine of our current editions become the twenty-two alluded to by Josephus. (c) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included. (d) In the early 3rd century A.D., neither Origin nor his contemporary, Tertullian, recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. (e)
Though some of the apocryphal books were being used in the church services by the 5th century A.D., they were read only by those who held inferior offices in the church.”[6]

Referring to Rashi, “He wrote commentaries upon the Bible almost in its entirety, besides frequently referring to it in his Talmudic commentaries…He was entirely ignorant of the Apocryphal books.”[7]

Regarding the Jewish Cannon The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states, “Only those books were admitted which were held to have been written before the time of Ezra when, according to tradition, the Holy Spirit ceased in Israel…Another probably term for apocrypha is sefarim
hitzonim, ‘books outside (of the cannon),’ which, according to Sanh. 10:1, were not to be read aloud in the synagogue as a Scriptural portion, under penalty of loss of one’s share in the world to come…On the whole, the books of the Apocrypha do not reach the high spiritual level of the Bible, although they contain some important Jewish conceptions.”[8]

The Book of Jewish Knowledge states, “…the latter-day editors of the Biblical cannon, which was fixed with finality by Rabbinical Synod in Galilee as taking place twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 C.E….early in the second century C.E., the illustrious Tanna (Sage) of the Mishnah, Akiba
ben Joseph, who was one of the chief architects of the Oral Tradition, had declared with unconcealed scorn that the Jew who read any other than the twenty-four canonical writings included in the Bible would have no share in the bliss of the righteous World-to-Come. It was also strictly forbidden to read from the extra-Biblical writings in the synagogue or House of Study to avoid endowing then through such readings with the same sanctity and prestige that
were reserved for the canonical writings….Certainly, form about 200 B.C.E. to the end of the first century of the Common Era, religious writings, which were keyed to the lofty mood and sonorous rhetoric of similarly patterned works in the Hebrew Scriptures…Some books were suppressed, according to testimony in the Talmud, because they were written by such religiously ‘outlawed’ sectaries (minim) as the Samaritans, Gnostics, and Christians. (They had been branded by the Rabbinical Sages as heretical).”[9]

The Encyclopedia of Judaism defines apocrypha and pseudepigrapha as, “Collections of Jewish writings that date from the Second Temple period and shortly thereafter, which were not included in the Jewish Bible canon…The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected by the sages, and are referred to in the Talmud as the Sefarim Hitsonim (‘external books’)…The apocryphal books were not accepted by the rabbis…The one exception is Ben Sira, which is quoted in the Talmud. It appears that the sages were mainly averse to apocalyptic literature, as may be seen from their warnings against reading ‘external books’ or searching for hidden meanings (Sanh. 10:1).”[10]

The Jewish Religion—A Companion Book defines apocrypha as, “The books produced by Jewish writers during the period of the Second Temple but not included in the Bible as part of sacred Scripture, as they are in Catholicism but not in the Protestant Church. The statement in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) that one who reads ‘external books’ has no share in the World to Come probably refers to the books of the Apocrypha and ‘reading’ means reading them in public as a liturgical act, which might make them appear to enjoy the status of the biblical books…None of these books is quoted in the Talmud or the Midrash with the exception of Ben Sira, from which there are occasional quotations with approval…the Apocrypha, were unknown in Jewish literature until the Renaissance period…these works are largely ignored entirely by Jews today…they were excluded from the Bible.”[11]

A Dictionary of Judaism states that the apocryphal books “were included in major manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but excluded from the rabbinic cannon…There is some indication that the Apocrypha continued to circulate in Jewish circles even after they had been excluded from the rabbinic canon…The development of the Apocrypha as a collection was the work of Jerome, the fourth-century Christian translator, exegete, and theologian, who included them in his new Latin translation (the Vulgate), but gathered them separately at the end, emphasizing that the Jewish community did not consider them canonical…Thanks to the renewed study of Judaism in the past decades, the Apocrypha are regularly included in editions of the Bible, where they provide a valuable resource for the study of early Christianity and its Jewish context.”[12]

F.F. Bruce states that there “is no evidence that these books were ever regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether inside or outside Palestine, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek.”[13]

Professor William Green of Princeton, “The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes.”[14]

“The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4^th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon.”[15]

“Tobit contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares….Judith cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains….[in 2
Maccabees] there are also numerous disagreements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion.”[16]

A Roman Catholic organization called A Catholic Response has stated, “Some Christians attempt to discredit these Books by pointing out apparent historical errors contained in them. It is common knowledge among scholars that Tobit and Judith contain obvious historical inaccuracies; however, these Books are recognized as didactic[17] parables, like Jonah. It is also common knowledge among scholars that Daniel suffers from similar glaring historical inaccuracies, e.g. Daniel 1:1.”[18]

Notice that in zealousness to lend credibility to the apocrypha the writer of the above quoted statement discredits the accepted canon. This quote comes from an article that was approved as Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur which means that a Roman Catholic-Vatican approved censor has approved the work as containing nothing that will hinder or go against the Roman Catholic faith. It is inconceivable how it does not hinder the Roman Catholic faith to believe that the Bible contains glaring historical inaccuracies.

A Catholic Response also stated, “The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books.”[19]

The point here is that Protestants were foolish to follow the Old Testament cannon as dictated by Pharasaic Jews because after all they rejected the New Testament books. The problem for the above argument is that it was Jews who translated the Greek Septuagint and so the point is null and void.

Specific Examples:

The Torah (five books of Moses) is quoted in Joshua 1:7; 1^st Kings 2:3; 2^nd Kings 14:6; 2^nd Chronicles 17:9; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Jeremiah 8:8; Malachi 4:4; as well as various New Testament texts.

The latter prophets are quoted in Jeremiah 26:18; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Daniel 9:2; Jonah 2:2-9; Micah 4:1-3. Luke is quoted in 1^st Timothy 5:18 (compare with Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Paul is quoted in 2^nd Peter 3:15-16. Peter is quoted in Jude 4-12.

Judith:

A Roman Catholic author has written, “The Book of Judith does not exist in the Hebrew Bible…St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because ‘the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture’ (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council, but it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times have reckoned Judith among the canonical books.”[20]

Judith 1:1, 7 states that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyrians in Nineveh when in fact he was the king of Babylon.

Tobit / Tobias:

A Roman Catholic author wrote, “Certain historical difficulties are due to the very imperfect condition in which the text has reached us. (i) It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (IV Kings, xv, 29) into captivity (734 B.C.), and not, as Tobias says (i, 2), Salmanasar…Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Salmanasar (i, 18), whereas he was the son of the usurper Sargon…(iii) In B, xiv, 15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asoueros) and Nabuchodonosor. This is a mistake of the scribe…(iv) Rages is a Seleucid
town and hence an anachronism. Not at all; it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored.”[21]

Salvation by alms:

Tobit 12:8-9, “It is better to give alms than to store up gold. For almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin.”

Magic:

Tobit 6:7-8, 19, “Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kinds of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them…lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away.”

The text is referring to a piece of the heart of a “monstrous fish” v. 2.

Sirach / Ecclesiasticus:

In defense of the apocrypha one Roman Catholic author wrote, “it would be obviously unfair to require that the contents of this Sapiential book should come full up to the high moral standards of Christian ethics, or should equal in clearness and precision the dogmatic teachings embodied in the sacred writings of the New Testament…it shall set forth substantially good, not perfect, doctrinal and ethical teaching…The following are the principal dogmatic doctrines of Jesus, the son of Sirach…almsgiving is a means to obtain forgiveness of sin (iii, 33, 34; vii, 10, 36)…favourable sayings about the dead (vii, 37; xxxviii, 16-24).”[22]

The Roman Catholic Bible Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:33, “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.”

The Roman Catholic Bible The New American Bible Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:23, “In a woman was sin’s beginning, and because of her we all die.”

Works and alms equal forgiveness:

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach

3:3 “Respect for a father atones for sins.”

3:30 “almsgiving atones for sin.”

17:18 “The alms of a man is as a signet with him, and shall preserve the grave of a man as the apple of the eye.”

20:28 “He that tilleth his land shall increase his heap: and he that pleaseth great men shall get pardon for iniquity.”

35:2 “to give alms is a praise-offering.”

Cruelty to slaves:

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 33:26,28 “The ox is tamed by yoke and harness, the bad servant by racks and tortures…and if he disobeys you, load him with fetters.”

Hatred of sinners:

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 12:4-7, “Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner: God will repay vengeance to the ungodly and to sinners, and keep them against the day of vengeance. Give to the good, and receive not a sinner. Do good to the humble, and give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not to him, lest thereby he overmaster thee.
For thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done to him: for the Highest also hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance to the ungodly.”

First and Second Maccabees:

Admits lack of prophets:

^1st Maccabees 9:27, admits a lack of prophets in Israel, “Thus there was great distress in Israel,
such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

1^st Maccabees 14:41, “The Jewish people and their priest have, therefore, made the following decisions. Simon shall be their permanent leader and high priest until a true prophet arises.”

2^nd Maccabees 12:38-46, “Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jew to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the LORD, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deeds might be blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among the soldiers, amounting to 2000 silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to raise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who have gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for
the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”

Wisdom of Solomon:

A Roman Catholic author admits that the book contains “Christian interpolations (ii, 24; iii, 13; iv, 1; xiv, 7).” Also attempts to explain away two difficulties. One which states that the world was “created out of ‘formless matter’ [xi, 18 (17)], a Platonic expression which in no way affirms the eternity of matter, but points back to the chaotic condition described in Gen., i, 2…to justify their rejection of the Book of Wisdom from the Canon, many Protestants have claimed that in viii, 19-20, its author admits the error of the pre-existence of the human soul. But this incriminated passage, when viewed in the light of its context, yields a perfectly orthodox sense.”[23]

Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 or 18 (depending on the edition);
Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate v. 18, “For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter.”

The New American Bible v. 17, ““For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter.”

Here is a teaching on sinless birth and the pre-existence of the soul (since this person claims to have been good or noble and afterwards to have come into or received a body).

Wisdom of Solomon 8.19-20,

Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate, “I was a witty child, and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came into a body undefiled.”

The New American Bible, “Now, I was a well-favored child, and I came by a noble nature; or rather, being noble, I attained an unsullied body.”

Baruch:

A Roman Catholic writes states, “In the Catholic Bible ‘the Prophecy of Baruch’ is made up of six chapters, the last of which bears the special title of an ‘epistle of Jeremiah’, and does not belong to the book proper.”[24]

Baruch 3:4,

Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate, “O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead of Israel, and of their children.”

Modern Roman Catholic The New American Bible has radically changed this verse to read, “Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear the prayer of Israel’s few, the sons of those who sinned against you.”

Please feel free to copy this article in its entirety in order to store it in your computer or in order to share it with others.

[1] David C. Gross, 1,001 Questions and Answers About Judaism (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1990), p. 190

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments (Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963), p. 98

[3] See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14

[4] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, OR. Harvest House Publishers, 2000), p. 36

[5] The New Bible Handbook (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1962), p. 39 quoted in Wayne Jackson, The Apocrypha: Inspired of God? (Christiancourier.com, Investigating biblical apologetics, religious doctrine, and ethical issues), Christian Courier: Archives, Tuesday, September 21, 1999

[6] Wayne Jackson, The Apocrypha: Inspired of God? (Christiancourier.com, Investigating biblical apologetics, religious doctrine, and ethical issues), Christian Courier: Archives, Tuesday, September 21, 1999 quoting “Against Apion 1.8” “cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14” and “see: T.H. Horne, Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, Philadelphia: Whetham & Son, 1841, Vol. I, p. 436”

[7] Maurice Liber, trans. from French by Adele Szold, Rashi (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1906), p. 83

[8] Isaac Landman, ed.; Rabbi of Congregation Beth Elohim and founder and director of the
Academy for Adult Jewish Education, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, In Ten Volumes (New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co., Inc., 1942), p. 423

[9] Nathan Ausubel, The Book of Jewish Knowledge—An Encyclopedia of Judaism and the
Jewish People, Covering All Elements of Jewish Life from Biblical Times to the Present (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1964), pp. 9, 347

[10] Geoffrey Wigoder, ed. in chief, The Encyclopedia of Judaism (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1989), pp. 70, 72

[11] Louis Jacobs, The Jewish Religion—A Companion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 29-30

[12] Jacob Neusner, ed. in chief and William Scott gen. ed., Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period 450 B.C.E to 600 C.E. (New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillian, 1996), p. 48

[13] The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1950), p. 157 quoted in Wayne Jackson, The Apocrypha: Inspired of God? (Christiancourier.com, Investigating biblical apologetics, religious doctrine, and ethical issues), Christian Courier: Archives, Tuesday, September 21, 1999

[14] General Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Scribner’s & Sons, 1899), p. 195 quoted in Wayne Jackson, The Apocrypha: Inspired of God? (Christiancourier.com, Investigating biblical apologetics, religious doctrine, and ethical issues), Christian Courier: Archives, Tuesday, September 21, 1999

[15] Referring to Donald J. Selby & James King West, Introduction to the Bible (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1971), pp. OT 434-435 and The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), Vol. II, Chap. 67, p. 517

[16] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Eugene, OR. Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 33 quoted in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning
from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, OR. Harvest House Publishers, 2000), p. 37

[17] Didactic: “1. intended for instruction…2. preaching or moralizing.” Webster’s 1983

[18] The Apocrypha? (A Catholic Response, Inc.), users.binary.net retrieved 7-7-02. Nihil Obstat: Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Bishop of Lincoln, 2-2-94

[19] The Apocrypha? (A Catholic Response, Inc.), users.binary.net retrieved 7-7-02. Nihil Obstat: Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Bishop of Lincoln, 2-2-94

[20] New Advent Website (copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. newadvent.org) Book of Judith, Hugh Pope, transcribed by Michael T. Barrett, Dedicated to Judy Van Horn, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII (Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight) Nihil Obstat: October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[21] New Advent Website (copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. newadvent.org) Book of Tobias, Transcribed by Michael T. Barrett, Dedicated to Sr.
Anne Marie, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV (Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight) Nihil Obstat: July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[22] New Advent Website (copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. newadvent.org) Ecclesiasticus, Francis E. Gigot, transcribed by Beth Ste-Marie, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V (Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight) Nihil Obstat: May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur: +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

[23] New Advent Website (copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. newadvent.org) Book of Wisdom, Francis E. Gigot, Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett, Dedicated to the Christian judges through the ages, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV (Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin
Knight)

[24] New Advent Website (copyright © 2002 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved. newadvent.org) Baruch, Frances E. Gigot, transcribed by Janet Grayson, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II (Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight) Imprimatur: +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

2005-11-06T20:47:00.000-08:00

Miscellaneous Comments

Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Apologetic Organization Catholic Answers:
“the doctrine of purgatory is not at odds with other tenets of Christianity. In fact, as he [Samuel Johnson] may have known, there is considerable scriptural warrant for it, even if the doctrine is not explicitly set out in the Bible.”[1]
Can it really be said that considerable scriptural warrant could be non-explicit.

“It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul expiates its sins: ‘I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the very last penny’ (Lk 12:59).”[2]
The concept of Purgatory is place between the particular and general judgments not because the Bible teaches this or even hints at it but because it is the only place that Mr. Keating could find to place it. It is so incongruous with Scripture that it must be forcefully inserted, and it must be inserted because it is found nowhere in the Bible.

“Fundamentalists note that biblical references to the judgment refer only to heaven and hell. Quite true. That is because most of the references are to the general judgment.”[3]
This is stated as opposed to the individual judgment. The problem for Mr. Keating is that references to individual judgment still say nothing about having to suffer for our own sins in the fires of Purgatory.

“professional anti-Catholics…claim, instead, that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong again. It speaks quite plainly of a third place, where Christ went after his death, the place commonly called the Limbo of the Fathers, where the just who died before the Redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them (I Pet 3:19). This place was neither heaven nor hell. Even if the Limbo of the Fathers was not purgatory, its existence shoes that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture.”[4]
The Limbo of the Fathers or Abraham’s Bosom is now empty and now there are only two places; heaven and hell.

“Anyone who has not completely expiated his sins—that is, not just had them forgiven, but ‘made up’ for them, been punished for them—in this life is, to some extent, ‘unclean.’ Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to qualify for heaven (which is to say his soul is spiritually alive), but that is not enough. He needs to be cleansed completely. By not admitting the doctrine of purgatory, one necessarily implies that even the slightest defilement results in the loss of the soul.”[5]
By made up he is making reference to Colossians 1:24 which he quotes as “in my sufferings for you, and [I] fill up those things that are wanting in the suffering of Christ.” This is in some way supposed to connect to Purgatory but as is fairly common in Roman Catholic writings they seem to overlook the line between the living and the dead. The living man Paul was writing to living people in the city of Colossi, from here by use of isogesis, this concept is force to breach that Biblically un-breachable chasm between the living and the dead.

“Fundamentalists think…Christ obviated[6] the need for any expiation on our part, but the Bible nowhere teaches that. Having one’s sins forgiven is not the same as having the punishment for them wiped out.”[7]
Then what does having ones sins forgiven mean?

“no parish maintains a ‘schedule of fees.’ A few people, of course, freely offer more. On average, though, a parish can expect to receive something less than five dollars by way of stipend for each memorial Mass said. These Masses are usually said on weekdays.”[8]
I’m not quite sure what he means by schedule of fees but I can speak as one that worked for a Roman Catholic Church for four and a half years. The local Archbishop decides how much a Mass intention costs; $10.00 in our case. In the Mass Book we write down the intention and we would mark whether it had been paid or not and, of course, we had a receipt book specifically for Mass intention payments. In the parish for which I worked there were seven Masses a week for which intentions were allowed, three intentions were allowed per Mass. Theoretically speaking this means that if all the intentions were sold the parish could bring in $840 per month from these sales alone. If this does not seem like much, sadly, it is a few dollars more than I was taking home every month for full time work. Multiply the dollar amount per Mass by millions of Masses all over the world, then multiply it by millennia and you will see that we are talking about an incredible amount of money.

Anthony Wilhelm:
“Purgatory is perhaps best described as the painful state or experience of encountering God after death, when we see him as he really is ‘face to face’ (1 Corinthians 13, 12), and, by contrast, ourselves as we really are, as sinful humans. An encounter with the living God always is painfully, totally upsetting.”[9]

“Christ has made up our sins, and now accepts us totally, but we yet have the need of doing something about them ourselves, as when we hurt anyone we love…Most people realize that they have not made up for all their sins, that they still are clinging to some faults, and therefore could not expect to be perfectly happy immediately after death with the perfect, totally accepting Love we call God.”[10]
True, as an example, if in this life we stole something we could make up for it by giving it back. But this concept cannot be taken into the afterlife because Jesus came to do that which we could not do; make it up to God. Any denial that Jesus did so fully, or the contradictory purgatorial argument that Jesus did do so but we must still suffer in the afterlife is a denial that Jesus completed the task for which He was born and died. Jesus Himself said, “It is finished/paid in full” (John 19:30).

“Those passing through this purgatory state know clearly that they are saved, God’s love overwhelms them, and they have a joy far more intense than anything on earth.”[11]
In that case, one would wonder why people are in such a hurry to get their dead relatives out of Purgatory. Sure, it is not yet heaven but that is where they know they are going so why not save your money and let them enjoy this intense joy for a few centuries? (Please forgive the sarcasm).

A Catholic Response, Inc.:
“Even though not explicitly referred to by name, the Bible does allude to it, especially in terms of purging fire.”[12]
As we discuss in our article The Consulted Scriptures in order to read Purgatory into the Bible in every place where any sort of flames are mentioned there is an attempt to insert Purgatory, yet to no avail.

“very serious sin - mortal sin – ‘kills’ our friendship with God. By willfully committing mortal sin, we reject God, and we lose this sanctifying grace (Titus 1:16). Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross can still redeem our friendship with God; however, we must repent and seek God’s forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). If we do not repent and die in this graceless state, then we suffer the loss of eternal life. This loss is eternal punishment or hell (Matt 25:46).”[13]
Let us explore the logical conclusion of this concept. We are talking about a person who has completed all their Roman Catholic sacraments, who has redemptive sanctifying grace i.e., God’s forgiveness. Let’s say that this person is driving along in their car and commits adultery in their heart by lusting after the photograph of a person on a billboard, if they get into a car crash and die they will go to hell for all eternity. This is because even though they had their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ and had redemptive sanctifying grace, they simply did not make it to the priest for confession and so they will go to hell. This is a nonsensical tactic from the Dark Ages and does not exist in the Bible. Forgiveness is forgiveness and salvation is salvation.

“Some sin is not serious enough to kill our friendship with God, but still it is harmful. The mess caused by our sin needs correction. This correction is temporal punishment (Hebrews 12:5-11). We can be corrected and cleansed through personal penance on earth or later in Purgatory - thanks to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.”[14]
True, Hebrews 12:5-11 speaks of correction or chastening but nowhere does the word of God speak of this as able to continue later in Purgatory.

“In comparison to hell, Purgatory could rightly be described as Paradise.”[15]
Maybe so, but compared to heaven Purgatory is hell.

“Others may object by citing that Christ’s Blood ‘cleanses us from all sin.’ [1 John 1:7] Now that is true, but His sacrifice of redemption can be applied in different ways, such as through Baptism, Confession, prayer…Another way is Purgatory.”[16]
If it is true then we could have Christ’s redeeming blood applied to us in Purgatory. This would mean either that an unforgiving sinner could be saved in Purgatory or that, as the case appears to be, Christ’s Blood does not cleanses us from all sin since we must still suffer for them ourselves in this life and afterwards.

[1] Karl Keating, Director of Catholic Answers [a Catholic apologetics organization], Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 190
[2] Keating, p. 191
[3] Keating, p. 191
[4] Keating, pp. 192-193
[5] Keating, p. 194
[6] Obviate: “to eliminate (difficulties, etc.) by anticipatory measures.” Webster’s 1983
[7] Keating, p. 195
[8] Keating, p. 196
[9] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1967, 1981 ed.) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark 7-27-81. p. 445
[10] Wilhelm, p. 446
[11] Wilhelm, p. 447
[12] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire (A Catholic Response, Inc.), users.binary.net Nihil Obstat: Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Bishop of Lincoln, 7-11-95
[13] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire
[14] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire
[15] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire
[16] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire

2005-11-06T20:01:00.000-08:00

The Consulted Scriptures

2nd Maccabees 12:38-46; 1st Corinthians 3:11-15; Matthew 5:26;
Matthew 12:32; 1st Peter 4:6; 2nd Timothy 1:16-18; Revelation 21:27

A very important aspect of dealing with the teaching on Purgatory is to understand the principle of isogesis. It is an essential aspect of creating this doctrine as is obvious because practically anywhere and everywhere the Scripture speaks of fire, flames, or purification we find an attempt to insert Purgatory. This is hermeneutically inappropriate, in order to build and or understand a doctrine one must start with the texts that are clear and are meant to speak on the subject and only then can one move to unclear passages that may not even relate to the subject. Since there is not one single text that clearly speaks on the subject of Purgatory the problem is compounded and the error of the dogma is all the more evident.

Here is one example, “In the Bible St. Paul writes about a purging fire that will purify our works ‘for the Day.’ St. Peter reminds us that our faith will be refined and tested by fire. Elsewhere in the Bible, the action of the Holy Spirit is described as fire. ‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ [Luke 3:16] According to the Spanish mystic, St. John of the Cross, the fire of Purgatory is God’s Love purifying our soul in preparation for the final beatific vision - the heavenly union with God. (Rev 22:3-5) ‘For indeed our God is a consuming fire’ [Heb 12:29].”[1]
It is not hard to see that neither in the verses quoted nor in their context is Purgatory envisaged. Statements regarding testing works or faith do not resemble Purgatory and never mention the burning up of sins, the serving of temporary sentences, nor any sort of post death – pre heaven purification.
In particular, note that being baptized by fire is un-contextually interpreted as purification. Moreover this purification is relegated to Purgatory, yet the text is clear, “John answered, saying to all, ‘I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire’” (Luke 3:16-17). It is the chaff, the unbelievers who are condemned, who will be baptized with fire, which means the unquenchable fires of hell.

Attempts to Find Purgatory in Scripture:

2nd Maccabees 12:38-46, “Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jew to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the LORD, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deeds might be blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among the soldiers, amounting to 2000 silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to raise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who have gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”
Footnote:
From the New American Bible; The New Catholic Translation; With Study Helps [2]: “This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v 42) and sacrifices (v 43) for the dead are beneficial. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7, 9, 14, 23, 36). That is, he believed in that expiation could be made for certain sins of otherwise good men-soldiers who had given their lives for God’s cause. Thus, they could share in the resurrection. His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.”

The New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Old Testament Douay Version[3] renders verse 40 as “And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia.”
Footnotes:
“Ver. 40. Of the donaries: I.e., of the offerings which had been hung up in the temples of the idols, which they had taken away when they burnt the port of Jamnia, ver. 9, contrary to the prohibition of the law, Deut. 7, 25.”
“Ver. 45. With godliness: Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because of ignorance of sin or through repentance at death.”
“Ver. 46. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead: a clear proof of the practice of praying for the dead under the old law, which was then strictly observed by the Jews, and consequently could not be introduced at that time by Judas, their chief and high priest, if it had not been always their custom.”

The Vatican approved footnotes are clear in stating that the text does not speak of Purgatory, only of praying for the dead. Likewise, Fr. Pat McCloskey states, “Some people have seen this story as biblical justification for the teaching on purgatory. That certainly overstates the author’s intention. If, however, those Jewish soldiers did something wrong by wearing pagan amulets, why offer sacrifices on their behalf?”[4] Fr. McCloskey does two things for us; he admits that to refer to this text as a Purgatory proof text is faulty. Maybe unwittingly, he points out the poor nature of non-inspired, non-Biblical books in stating, “If…those Jewish soldiers did something wrong…why offer sacrifices on their behalf.” First of all, there are no ifs about it, the text is clear “the law forbids the Jew to wear” the amulets. Secondly, “They all therefore praised the ways of the LORD, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden” first they rejoice in God’s justice but then they offer sacrifices on the behalf of those whom God has justly slain.

Note that Judas’ actions were holy and pious “if” he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who have gone to rest in godliness. The question is; can idolaters who have been rightly slain by God be referred to as having gone to rest in godliness? By no means, they were doing that which the law of God forbids. Also, these men were not as the footnote states, “otherwise good men-soldiers who had given their lives for God’s cause.” They were not fighting for God’s cause since the text admits that they were worshipping the idols of Jamnia. They might have been fighting for the spoils of war as an employment but they were not fighting for God’s cause. This text is not applicable to Purgatory because the dead had committed mortal sin. The Catholic Catechism #1035 states, “Immediately after death the soul of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.” Therefore, they did not go to Purgatory and no amount of money could be offered for them in order to buy their way out of hell. This is why Catholic apologists will rely on pure guesswork in stating that they might have repented right before they died. We are not to base doctrines on assumptions.

In order to support prayer for the dead, Catholic apologists often claim that Jews pray for their dead. However, a distinction must be made between a Biblical practice and a secular tradition. Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, who was for many decades one of America’s foremost spiritual leaders states, “No prayers to or for the dead are ordained in the Bible, no sacrifices to the dead, no ancestor worship, and no prescribed rites of sepulture...Judaism opposes the cult of the dead even as it opposes the cult of nature.”[5] It is also important to note that in the 9th century AD at the Jewish Council of Jamnia the cannon of the Jewish Bible was formalized and it is exactly the same as the Protestant Bible, it excludes Maccabees and the other apocrypha (see our article The Apocrypha).

Some things that are unique to this text and which proves it false is that the soldiers pray for the forgiveness of the sins of the dead; something found no where else in the entire Bible. Judas took up a collection, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice for the dead; something found nowhere else in the entire Bible. He is said to have made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from their sin—something found nowhere else in the entire Bible. Particularly poignant is the very fact that not such prescription is offered in any sense whatsoever in the Torah, in the Law which is very detailed and specific instructions regarding various sorts of offerings for sin—yet, there is not one single mention of the concept of prayer, or sacrifice, or alms, for the dead.

1st Corinthians 3:11-15, “for no one can lay any foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
Footnote:
From the New American Bible; The New Catholic Translation; With Study Helps: “3, 15: Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 5, 5; 11, 32 [discipline]). The text of v 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”

From the New Testament of the New American Bible; Illustrated St. Joseph Edition With Valuable Study Guide[6]: “3, 10-15: Paul’s work was to found the community on Christ (10f). The work of others for the spiritual good of the community is to be evaluated in terms of enhancing faith in Christ, and of this, God is ultimately the judge (12-15).”

From the New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes[7]: “3:15. suffer a loss: i.e., of reward for having propagated the kingdom of God, the Church, in an imperfect manner, yet if the preacher’s conscience is otherwise clear he will be saved. The teacher of this verse implies the doctrine of the Church on purgatory. If the minor offenses of preachers are punished on the last day with a punishment less than damnation, similarly other minor offenses will be punished on the last day with a punishment less than damnation, before the offender is fit for entrance into heaven.”

From the New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated from the Latin Vulgate and The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition[8]: “3, 15: Lose his reward: he will loose the special reward of preaching but will be saved if his conscience is otherwise clear. The teaching of this verse implies the teaching for Christian tradition on purgatory. If the venial offenses of preachers are punished on the last day, similarly other venial sins will be punished after the particular judgement.”

Since one of the proudest boasts of Roman Catholicism is that it is a monolith of unity un-fractured as opposed to what they claim Protestantism is, we should expect unity of Biblical interpretation but as we see here the footnotes to these Vatican approved Bibles lead us in different directions. Some regard the text to be speaking only of the reward, or lack thereof, for preachers. One assures us that the text does not envisage Purgatory. And one assures us that the text implies the doctrine of the Church on purgatory.
Each of these Bibles has been approved as Nihil Obstat, which means nothing hinders. This phrase is printed in the front of a book in order to indicate that it has been examined by an ecclesiastical censor who has found nothing in the publication that would be contrary to Roman Catholic faith and morals.
However, can contradictions really be said to not hinder ones faith and not be contrary to faith? If the Vatican has infallibly approved the Bible and appointed the ecclesiastical censor how can we have vastly different teachings? In short, the answer to whether the Roman Catholic Church believes that 1st Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks of Purgatory or not is yes and no, it depends on which of their approved Bibles you are reading, it depends on which of their many interpretations you are following. This is exactly the sort of thing that Roman Catholics use to attack Protestantism.

We note that the text speaks of works and rewards for works, not sin and punishment for sin. The text speaks of the works being burned in order to be tested; it does not speak of the person being burned (however symbolic) in order to be purged of sin. Likewise with the verse “So that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire” (1st Peter 1:7). No mention or hint of sin, suffering for sin or degree of sin.

Matthew 5:26, “I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
When we read the previous verse for the sake of context we find that it states, “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” We learn that Jesus was talking about reconciliation between people and not about the afterlife and the prison of Purgatory. However, while a parable speaks of a reality it is a parable and any metaphor eventually breaks down because it is after all just that, a metaphor. The context of this verse is that a man was going to be thrown into debtor’s prison, which is an incarceration that would not cease until the debtor has paid his financial dues. The text tells of a man who owed an extremely large amount that he would never have been able to pay. Clearly, rather than speaking of a place of punishment from which he would eventually be freed it speaks of a person who would never be released.

Matthew 12:32, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
The claim is that Jesus was hinting about a place in the age to come were sins are forgiven. Speaking, or blasphemy, against the Holy Spirit is obviously a serious offense, a mortal sin if you will. According to Roman Catholicism, Purgatory is a place where one may only have their venial sins forgiven: unrepented venial sins. Mortal sins must be repented (forgiven) before death, one may go to Purgatory in order to make satisfaction for forgiven mortal sins. Apparently since there are only two modes of existence that humans experience, the here and the hereafter (this age or in the age to come), Jesus is saying that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven period; not here – not anywhere. Jesus is utilizing hyperbolic language in order to mean not now, not ever. It is like when someone says, “I’ll do so and so when hell freezes over,” do they really believe that there will be a time when hell will freeze over and that is when they will do so and so? No, they mean that they will never perform the act. He is not hinting at the possibility of having some sins forgiven in the hereafter. Jesus taught more about Hell than anyone else in the whole Bible so why would He leave Purgatory as an ambiguous hint at best? Finally, we consider the parallel passage found in Mark which makes Jesus’ point even clearer, “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:28-29).

1st Peter 4:6, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.”
How this is even considered a hint of Purgatory is indiscernible. This verse, while very simple to understand, is often misunderstood due to an overactive mythical imaginations. It is important to notice the tenses in which the sentence is written. It says “the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” Was, past tense and are now, present tense. It says that the gospel was once preached to living people who are now dead. It does not say that the gospel is now being preached even to those who are now dead. It does not say that the gospel will be preached even to those who are now dead.

2nd Timothy 1:16-18, “May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.”
Fr. Oscar Lukefahr states, “The New Testament (2 Timothy 1:18) contains a prayer for one who had died: Paul says of his friend, Onesiphorus: ‘May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day.’ As the footnotes in the New American Bible point out, “Onesiphorus apparently died before this letter was written.”[9]
Assuming or guessing is absolutely no way to build a doctrine and it is a sure sign of grasping at straws. The verse in question is not phrased as, “and Paul turned to the Lord in supplication” or “Paul prayed to the Lord saying…” The verse is contained within a statement that Paul is making to another person and not to God. Even if Onesiphorus is dead there is no indication at all from the whole New Testament that Paul (or anyone else) ever prayed neither to nor for a dead person.
Another Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur approved article states, “Praying for the dead is quite biblical. In the Book of Maccabees…[and when] St. Paul offers a short prayer for Onesiphorus and his family: May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus…may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day…[2 Tim 1:16 & 18] Whether dead or live, St. Paul intercedes (mediates) for him to God (1 Tim 2:1-5).”[10]
Considering that we were told that Praying for the dead is quite biblical we should have expected numerous and clear texts supporting this practice. However, all we are offered is one text from an apocryphal book and a guess. After all, if 2nd Timothy 1:16, 18 is being offered as proof of prayer for the dead why does the author state Whether dead or live? If he is alive then it is not a prayer for the dead!

Revelation 21:27, “But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lambs book of life.”
This verse can only be forced to speak of Purgatory by pure isogesis. If we come to the Scripture with a preconceived notion then the way to be cleansed and enter Heaven is to suffer in Purgatory first then we would read “But nothing unclean will enter it” and assume that Purgatory is a necessity. However, when we apply exegesis we see that the written word of God clearly teaches that the cleanliness necessary for entering Heaven is only gotten through grace by the finished work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.

Remember that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated, “My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it.’”[11]
When we examine supposed Purgatory proof texts we fine that it is not a case of if it did not exist we would invent it but rather, since it does not exist we did invent it.

[1] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire (A Catholic Response, Inc.), uswers.binary.net Nihil Obstat: Reverend M. James Divis, S.T.L., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Bishop of Lincoln, 7-11-95
[2] The New American Bible; The New Catholic Translation, With Study Helps (Nashville: Catholic Bible Press a Division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987) For the NAB Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., S.S.L. & Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington. 7-27-70. For the Revised New Testament Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., S.S.L. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: James A. Hickey, S.T.D., J.C.D. Archbishop of Washington. 8-27-86. For “English Version of the Bible” Nihil Obstat: Nicholas Tranter, S.T.L. & Lionel Swain, S.T.L., L.S.S. Censors. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Heenan Archbishop of Westminster. 4-25-69.
For Catholic Study Notes Nihil Obstat: John P. Murray, C.M., S.T.L., S.S.L. & Daniel A. Murray, S.T.L., S.S.L. Censor. Imprimatur: James D. Neidergeses Bishop of Nashville. 6-27-86.
[3] New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Old Testament Douay Version with newly edited annotations of Bishop Challoner and a new translation of the Book of Psalms for the New Latin Version approved by Pope Pius XII and the New Testament Confraternity Edition a revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version edited by Catholic scholars under the patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1949-1950) Imprimatur: +Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, 9-14-48.
[4] Fr. Pat McCloskey, O.F.M., Ask a Franciscan, St. Anthony’s Messenger, Nov. 2000, p. 48
[5] Abba Hillel Silver, Where Judaism Differs. An Inquiry into the Distinctiveness of Judaism (Collier Books—New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. and London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1987), p. 269. Dr. Silver “was for many decades one of America’s foremost spiritual leaders.”
[6] The New Testament of the New American Bible; Illustrated St. Joseph Edition With Valuable Study Guide (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970) Nihil Obstat: Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., S.S.L. & Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington.
[7] The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes, Part One-The Four Gospels translated by James A. Kleist, S.J. Part Two Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse translated by Hoseph L. Lilly, C.M. Nihil Obstat Robert G. Boucher, C.Ss.R., S.T.L., S.S.L. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1954)
[8] The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version, Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. Henry J. Grimmelsman, S.T.D., Rev. John F. McConnell, M.M., S.T.L., S.S.L., Rev. Joseph J. Tennant, S.T.D., S.S.L. Also approved by Eugune Cardinal Tisserant, President of the Pont. Biblical Commission and His Excellency Most Rev. Edwin V. O’Hara Bishop of Kansas City (Patreson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1941)
And The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition—This Bible was commended by Pope Paul VI—Edited by Rev. Thomas B. McDonough S.T.L., J.D. The Catholic Press Chicago, Illinois 1969. A new edition of the Catholic Family Bible published previously with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Strich and with the Imprimatur of His Eminence Albert Cardinal Meyer Archbishop of Chicago—Imprimatur Rt. Rev. Francis W. Byrne J.C.L. Vicar General Archdiocese of Chicago 59-69. DATE
[9] Fr. Oscar Lukefahr, C.M., Director of Catholic Home Study Services, one of America’s most popular interpreters of Catholic faith and the Bible, “We Believe…” A Survey of the Catholic Faith, Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO.: Liguori Publications, 1990), Imprimatur Potest: William A. Nugent, C.SS.R. Provincial, St. Louis Province, The Redemptorists, Imprimatur: Monsignor Maurice F. Byrne, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of St. Louis. p. 66
[10] Purgatory: The Purifying Fire (A Catholic Response, Inc.)
[11] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), pp. 146-147

2005-11-06T16:42:00.000-08:00

Purgatory is not a

Second Chance and,

What is Grace?

Roman Catholicism does not teach that Purgatory is a second chance at salvation. Purgatory is a place where those who are saved go to suffer temporarily. Those in Purgatory died in the state of grace, but may have some unrepented venial sins or may have to make satisfaction for forgiven mortal sins. There they suffer until admitted into heaven (see Catholic Catechism #1030).
In that case we must ask, what is grace? Can you die in a state of grace and still have to suffer for your own sins? Can you make satisfaction or payment for your own sin?
Hermano Sandoval taught that we cannot know who is going to heaven and who is not because we have not been judged yet, that is, judgement before God after our death.[1] However, John wrote, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1st John 5:13) John did not write so that you may wonder, or worry, or think, or hope. Neither does he write you might have, or may gain, or will be lucky to get, eternal life. No, rather, he writes so that you may know! that you have eternal life! Thank you Jesus.

The Catholic Catechism #1473 states, “the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the ‘old man’ and to put on the ‘new man.’”
The Catholic Catechism teaches that punishment for sin is a grace, yet we need not debate what grace is and is not, because the Bible clearly defines it for us. Also note that while we are called to do good works, the Bible makes it clear that good works cannot merit salvation. We do good works because we have been saved.

“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work” (Romans 11:6).

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood…to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:22-26).

“All of us are like someone unclean, all our righteous deeds are like menstrual rags; we wither, all of us, like leaves; and our misdeeds blow us away like the wind” (Isaiah 64:6).

“‘The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.’ When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered” (Ezekiel 33:12).

“when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-5).

“the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1st Peter 1:5).

If we are saved by grace then works cannot merit salvation, and if we are saved by works then grace is of no affect, therefore, if grace is then works are not, and if works are then grace is not.

And so we see that if we die in a state of grace we do not and cannot still have to suffer for our own sins. If we could make satisfaction for our own sin, why did Jesus humble Himself from the heights of heaven to the most humiliating death on Earth?

The concept of Purgatory presents us with an example of yes/but theology. Yes Jesus died for our sins but we must still suffer. Yes Jesus paid the price on the cross but we must still suffer. Yes Jesus paid it all once and for all but we must still suffer. According to dogma, Christ’s passion on the cross keeps those who are His our of hell but they must still suffer for their own sin, unrepented venial sin and repented mortal sin.

The most dangerous aspect of the doctrine of Purgatory is that when we draw the concept to its logical conclusion we conclude that Jesus did not pay the entire price for all of our sins on the cross. Roman Catholicism does not teach this but it is the logical conclusion. Of course, the Bible disagrees and makes it plain and simple, “So when Jesus had received the sour wine [or vinegar], He said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing his head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30).
Moments before His death on the cross Jesus cried out “It is finished” or “Paid in full.” The Gospel writers used the Greek word “Tetelestai,” which is the perfect tense of the word “tel-eh'-o” that is used in the New Testament to mean; finish, fulfill, accomplish, pay, perform, expire, to bring to a close, to end, passed, complete, to pay. The word “tel-eh'-o” comes from the word “tel'-os” that is used to mean; end, uttermost, finally, ending, termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be, the last in any succession or series, that by which a thing is finished, its close. The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

On the issue of second chances at salvation the fact is that we do get a second change, we get a second, third, fourth, we get hundreds all throughout our lives. These chances only cease when we die and live all of eternity where we have chosen to do so.

[1] Stated during a class held at St. Joseph on the Rio Grande Roman Catholic Church, Alb., NM. on March 20th, 2001

2005-11-06T15:52:00.000-08:00

Indulgences and Necromancy

The Catholic Catechism States the Following Regarding Indulgences:
#1471 “What is an indulgence? ‘An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.’ [Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 1] ‘An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.’ [Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 2; cf. Norm 3] Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.”

#1478 “An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.”

#1479 “Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.”

#1032 “…The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and communicate 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.”

Indulgences and Necromancy:
The Catholic Church technically forbids selling religious rituals; money is not exchanged for spiritual favors, at least not officially speaking. As with most Catholic doctrines what happens is that we end up in a maze of semantics. For example, the language that Catholics employ when requesting a Mass intention is that of buying a Mass or purchasing a Mass and asking how much it cost, never I would like to offer a donation of an unspecified amount for a free service. While officially intentions are not bought nor sold the fact is that there is a set price for Mass intentions (ten dollars locally) that must be paid, a forced donation is not a donation it is a sale. If it was a donation then when the intention was requested the office staff would be trained to tell you that you could donate one dollar, five dollars, thirty dollars or nothing at all, yet they are taught to collect an amount specified by the local Archbishop. A Mass intention is when the name of a deceased person, a sick person, or a person having a birthday etc. is mentioned during Mass, which gains the intention for them. For example, a Mass for the deceased gains them time off of Purgatory.

The concept of indulgences is brilliant, as a money making scheme that is. Consider this metaphor, the concept is tantamount to advertising a product but the buyer never sees it and cannot know for sure if it exists or if it is functioning. Moreover, when the buyer comes to purchase the product they are told for example, that they are to pay ten dollars per month. Then when the buyer asks, “How much does it cost all together? How do I know when to stop paying the ten dollars per month?” The response would be “You can’t know when to stop paying and we don’t either, just keep sending the money month after month always and forever.” This sort of abuse would never stand in the world of retail and it should certainly never fly in the world of religion. Yet, when we consider that indulgences were made immensely popular as a means to make money to use for the building of St. Peter’s church we should not be surprised.

Martin Luther retells the concerns of lay persons in his Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences commonly known as the 95 Theses numbers 81-83 state, “This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity; They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?”

The Bible is extremely clear about buying and selling spiritual gifts.
“Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin’” (Acts 8:17-23).

Father Oscar Lukefahr, “The Church applies indulgences to the deceased, following the biblical teaching of Paul that members of Christ’s Body can help one another (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) and that the merits of one member can be applied to others (Colossians 1:24).”[1]
Due to reading preconceived notions into the text, Roman Catholic doctrine often makes connections where there are none to be made. No one would ever read a connection between the living and the dead from these texts from the plain and contextual reading. For example, consider that Paul states “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you…” (Colossians 1:24). Clearly he (a living man) is referring to the (living) people to whom he is writing in stating “for you” the (living) people who are reading his letter.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “to have a Mass offered for a person is very powerful.…the person may be in purgatory, and then the Mass obtains either deliverance from purgatory, or lessens the time in purgatory, or finally, reduces the intensity of the suffering in purgatory.”[2]
What comes to mind is the question “How do you know?” This also contradicts the following quote.

Fr. Pat McCloskey wrote, “Prayers for the deceased are not a means of buying their way out of purgatory.”[3]

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm., “a person could live for years in the state of grace and have the misfortune to fall into grievous sin. If death overtook him before he had a chance to go to confession or to make an act of perfect contrition, he would be lost.”[4]
This is the epitome of works based salvation. We are no longer saved by grace through faith rather; we are saved by the work of confession. What would happen if you were on your way to the confession and got into a car wreck and died? Who could live with such spiritual paranoia?

John L. Stoddard, “Scripture certainly teaches that souls in Heaven retain their love for us, and that they are, to some extent at least, aware of what transpires here. Jesus Himself assures us that ‘joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.’ He also tells us:—‘There is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.’…in the Book of Revelation (viii. 3) we read of an Angel, whose duty it is to ‘offer the prayers of all saints upon the altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God.’ Moreover, in the same book (v. 8), we read of ‘golden vials full of perfume, which are the prayers of saints.’…Now the prayers of the Saints and Angels can hardly be for themselves, but must rather be for those who need their prayers,—that is, for the poor sinners in this world…Just how the Saints and Angels are made aware of our petitions need not concern us.”[5]
Oddly enough he does not mention the one text that would come the closest to making his point, “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” (Revelation 6:9-10). Although it does not seem clear if the souls under the altar have knowledge of what is occurring on Earth or if they are merely aware that all is not as it should be in heaven. Therefore, it seems to be somewhat speculative to state that Scripture certainly teaches that souls in Heaven…are, to some extent at least, aware of what transpires here.
The next issue is the statement the prayers of the Saints and Angels can hardly be for themselves. There is absolutely no mention in the Bible of angel’s prayers, angels communicate with God by coming right into His presence and speaking to Him face to face, they don’t need to pray.

What we also see is that because Roman Catholicism designates specific special holy people as saints (canonized saints) when Mr. Stoddard reads the word saint in the texts he quoted he automatically, by preconceived notions, thinks that they are (especially holy) dead people already in heaven. Note that the text states that twenty-four elders are offering the prayers of the saints to God. They are specifically numbered at twenty-four but Roman Catholicism has canonized hundreds of saints. There is also no particular indication that the prayers were directed at the elders or the angels and that they in turn are now interceding and giving them over to God.

A very important and interesting point to make is that Roman Catholics believe that they can pray to saints and even their own dead relatives because these people are already in the presence of God. However, the very same religious system that teaches them that also teaches that in reality they cannot know when these dead people have gotten out of Purgatory and have gone to heaven. Also note that even the Apostles of Jesus Christ are said to have gone to Purgatory. These people may be in Purgatory for years, decades, centuries, millennia or as the apparition as Fatima put it until the end of the world.[6]

Catholic apologist Tim Staples said, “In the book of Job, for example, God will not accepted the prayers of the men who are criticizing Job. He [God] asks them, ‘You pray to Job or I’m not going to hear your prayers.’ It was through the intercession of Job that these fellows had their sins forgiven.”[7]
It must be noted here that there is a vast difference between Job’s friends or his children and those in Purgatory. While Job interceded for his friends and offered sacrifices for his children they were still living but those in Purgatory are dead. It is equally important to note there is absolutely no indication that once Job’s children died Job continued to offer sacrifices for them nor does he pray for them. King David prayed for his dying son yet, once the child died he never again prayed for him. It appears that Job’s actions are told to us in a descriptive and not a prescriptive manner.

Catholic dogma draws little or no distinction between the living and the dead. For example, Catholicism teaches that praying to dead people is acceptable because living people are told to pray for one another in the New Testament. Yes, living people are told to pray for one another but there is not one single verse that states that living people are to pray for the dead. Moreover, God makes it clear that making contact with the dead is an offense, “thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deuteronomy 18:9-12).

Necromancy is generally understood to mean communication with the dead. Technically it is “conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events.”[8] It is clear that Roman Catholicism teaches that it is totally acceptable to contact the dead in prayerful state in order to ask them to influence the course of events.

Certain other offenses were punishable by death as well such as breaking the Sabbath however, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law, He is the Lord of the Sabbath (see Matthew 12:8 & Luke 6:5). There is no indication in the Bible that would make it acceptable to make contact with the dead. Also far beyond praying to Catholic Canonized saints Catholics also pray to their dead relatives, Mary, Joseph and angels, “O dearest St. Joseph, I entrust myself to your honor and give myself to you that you may always be my father, my protector, and my guide in the way of salvation…O my good Guardian Angel, whom God has entrusted to be my guardian…St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our safeguard against wickedness and snares of the devil…”[9]

We should not be surprised that when a person engages in practices such as necromancy odd and Biblically un-approved things begin to occur. Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J., wrote, “Apparitions of the souls that are in Purgatory are of frequent occurrence. We find them often in great numbers in the ‘Lives of the Saints’; they happen sometimes to the ordinary faithful….God has allowed souls in Purgatory to appear on earth to plead for prayers, sacrifices, and Masses for their relief.”[10] Also, along with requests for buying Mass intentions (or even performing other acts which gain indulgences) we often see emotionally charged and guilt ridden pleas. For example, Hermano Juan Sandoval[11] told a very common Purgatory-indulgence metaphor. He said that if we were standing with a friend by a fire and our friend fell in who would not reach their hand out to pick them up out of the fire, he then applied this logic to those in Purgatory. In the actual word of God there is simply no such thing, not even any indication or slight hint, that dead people will or should appear to us to ask us to spend money for their sake or to ask us to pray for the dead.

Moreover, we are taught that we can suffer in the place of those in Purgatory, “St. Catherine of Siena, in order to spare her father the pains of Purgatory, offered herself to the Divine Justice to suffer in his stead during her whole life. God accepted her offer, inflicted the most excruciating torments upon her, which lasted until her death, and admitted the soul of her father into eternal glory. In return this blessed soul frequently appeared to his daughter to thank her, and to make to her many useful revelations.”[12]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; renowned theologian, Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office), which is the most important Vatican curial office, charged with the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, stated, “The happiness or unhappiness of a person dear to me, who has now crossed to the other shore, depends in part on whether I remember or forget him; he does not stop needing my love.’”[13]

Apparently our suffering in this world is not enough, Purgatory is the kind of dogma that encourages us to suffer even more in place of the dead (did Jesus not suffer for us?) our reward is that these dead people will appear to us and give us revelation. This is taught in direct opposition of the words of Abraham as told by Jesus, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’” (Luke 16:31). Within context the lesson of the text is that if we do not believe in the Bible we will not believe even if someone resurrects. In its connection to these necromantic and apparition teachings the point is that since we have the Bible we should not pray to or for the dead. We also do not need the dead to appear to us and give us new revelations. From everything we learn in the Bible if St. Catherine offered her own suffering for the sake of her father, God would have told her “My Son has accomplished His task. He specifically stated ‘It is finished-paid in full’” (John 19:30).

Note also that in number 29 of his 95 Theses, Martin Luther stated, “Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).” Not only is the point that there are Catholic traditions that teach that some in Purgatory are willing to be there for their entire stay but that they can help us.

Pope Benedict XVI also places responsibility for the already dead upon the living when he stated, “‘The biblicism which was first developed in the Protestant tradition and which has rapidly come into Catholic theology as well. Here people maintain that those explicit passages of Scripture about the state which tradition calls ‘Purgatory’ (the term is certainly a relatively late one, but the reality was evidently believed by Christians from the very beginning) are inadequate and insufficiently clear. But as I have said elsewhere, this biblicism has scarcely anything to do with the Catholic understanding, according to which the Bible must be read within the Church and her faith. My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it.’ Why? ‘Because few things are as immediate, as human and as widespread – at all times and in all cultures – as prayer for one’s own departed dear ones.’ ‘…The happiness or unhappiness of a person dear to me, who has now crossed to the other shore, depends in part on whether I remember or forget him; he does not stop needing my love.’”[14]
We also get a hint at Roman Catholicism often dangerous syncretism. The claim is that Purgatory makes sense because all cultures pray for their dead, yet these are the same culture that have beliefs and practices that are condemned by God. The reason we stated dangerous syncretism is that what we often see in Roman Catholic practice is that it will bow down to and conform to culture rather than raising the culture up to excellence, which is the standard of the Gospel.

We also learn that living people visit Purgatory and are lead there by angels. What sort of angels these are may be answered by noting that Scripture tells us that, “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2nd Corinthians 11:14). “The vision of Purgatory has been granted to many holy souls. St. Catherine de Ricci descended in spirit into Purgatory every Sunday night; St. Lidwina, during her raptures, penetrated into this place of expiation, and, conducted by her angel guardian, visited the soul in their torments. In like manner, an angel led Blessed Osanne of Mantua through this dismal abyss.”[15]

In Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences commonly known as the 95 Theses, Martin Luther points out that even within the laws of Roman Catholicism there is a line drawn between living and dead, the dead are no longer under church laws.
#8, “The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.”
#10, “It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.”
#13, “Death puts and end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.”

The point is clear, by its teaching on Purgatory the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to have some sort of control (apply canon law) over the dead.

The following quotes are from an article written by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J., he points out that praying for the dead in relation to Purgatory is a relic of the pre-Christian past which was taught to native Americans by likening it to their own Day of the Dead and has likewise been used in Christianizing the concept of ancestor worship. He also demonstrates that All Souls Day is traced back to over 600 to 1300 years after Christ.
“Spanish-speaking Catholics today popularly refer to All Souls Day as El Dia de los Muertos, a relic of the past when the pre-Christian Indians had a Day of the Dead; liturgically, the day is referred to as El Dia de las Animas. The French Jesuit missionaries in New France in the 17th century easily explained All Souls Day by comparing it to the local Indian Day of the Dead…Ancestor worship was also well known in China and elsewhere in Asia, and missionaries there in times gone by perhaps had it easier explaining All Souls Day to them, and Christianizing the concept, than they would have to us in the Western world as the 20th century draws to a close…The doctrine of purgatory, rightly understood as praying for the dead, should never give offense to anyone who professes faith in Christ…When we discuss All Souls Day, we look at a liturgical commemoration which predated doctrinal formulation itself, since the Church often clarifies only that which is being undermined or threatened. The first clear documentation for this celebration comes from Isidore of Seville (d. 636; the last of the great Western Church Fathers)…Pope Sylvester in 1003 approved and recommended the practice…from the 11th to the 14th century, it spread in France, Germany, England and Spain. Finally, in the 14th century, Rome placed the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed in the official books of the Western or Latin Church…November 2 was chosen in order that the memory of all the holy spirits, both of the saints in heaven and of the souls in purgatory, should be celebrated in two successive days…All Saints Day goes back to the fourth century, but was finally fixed on November 1 by Pope Gregory in 835.”[16]

Note that Fr. Van Hove stated that, “the Church often clarifies only that which is being undermined or threatened.” Statements such as this are often made by Roman Catholics in order to explain away the vast amount of time (often millennia) that passes from the time of the Apostles from which they allegedly get their doctrine to the time that it becomes Roman Catholic dogma. What he fails to mention is that when the Church formally defines dogma it goes far beyond clarifying that which is being undermined or threatened. What the Roman Catholic Church does in its official declarations is that it places anathema (condemnation) on those who do not accept the teaching as is. In the case of the inauguration of a Feast Day in relation to a new official dogma, the penalty for not attending Mass for that day places mortal sin upon the Catholic.
According to the Catholic Catechism if one dies with unrepented mortal sin they will go to hell for all eternity unless they confess it to a priest. Even if they died with repented-forgiven mortal sin they still have to suffer for it in Purgatory. This is a flagrant disregard of Paul’s teaching about the freedom we have in Christ, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (Romans 14:5-6). Paul also explains, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:8-11).

[1] Father Oscar Lukefahr, C.M., Director of Catholic Home Study Services, one of America’s most popular interpreters of Catholic faith and the Bible, “We Believe…” A Survey of the Catholic Faith, Revised and Cross-Referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO.: Liguori Publications, 1990), Imprimatur Potest: William A. Nugent, C.SS.R. Provincial, St. Louis Province, The Redemptorists, Imprimatur: Monsignor Maurice F. Byrne, Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of St. Louis. p. 66
[2] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, Ask Father Hardon, catholic.net Copyright 1998 Inter Mirifica
[3] Fr. Pat McCloskey, O.F.M., “Ask a Franciscan,” St. Anthony’s Messenger, Nov. 2000, p. 48
[4] Most Rev. E. K. Lynch, O. Carm. General of the Carmelite Order, The Scapular of Carmel (Washington: World Apostolate of Mary, AMI Press, nd) Nihil Obstat: Romae, 20 Januarii 1955, Kennetus Leahy, Censor Dep.. Imprimatur: E Vicariatu Civit, Vatic., 1 Martii 1955, Fr. Canisius van Lierde, Ep. Porphyr. Vic. Gen. Civ. Vat. p. 16
[5] John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, nd.) Nihil Obstat: C. Schut, D.D., Censor Deutatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasteri, Die 21 Martii, 1922. pp. 180-181
[6] John Vennari, A World View Based on Fatima, This edited transcript of a speech given at the Fatima: World Peace 2000 conference, October 1999 helps us better understand the real background to the full Fatima Secret. The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, Issue 64 (Published by the National Committee for the National Pilgrim Virgin of Canada:), pp. 103-105
[7] Quoted from a broadcast of The Bible Answer Man radio program.
[8] Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.
[9] Alliance of the Two Hearts (Two Hearts Media Organization printed in the USA, 1997), pp. 5, 8, 17. Nihil Obstat: +Most Rev. Leo Drona, SDB, DD, Bishop of San Jose, Bueva Ecija, 10-13-97. Imprimatur: +His Eminence Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal, DD, Archbishop of Cebu 10-13-97.
[10] Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J., Purgatory, Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints (Rockford, IL.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1926, 1991 ed.), p. xxxvi, back cover. Nihil Obstat: H.M. Bayley, Censor deputatus. Imprimatur: +Herbetus Cardinal Vaughan, Archiep. Westmonasterien, 10-11-1893.
[11] At a class on Roman Catholicism held at St. Joseph on the Rio Grande Roman Catholic Church, Alb., NM. on March 20th, 2001
[12] Fr. Schouppe, p. xxxviii-xxxix
[13] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), The Ratzinger Report, An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), p. 147
[14] Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), pp. 146-147
[15] Fr. Schouppe, p. xxxviii
[16] Praying For The Dead, net2.netacc.net quoting Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J., published in the November/December '94 issue of The Catholic Answer, Our Sunday Visitor (Huntington, Indiana)

2005-11-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

Purgatory’s Conception

and Chronology

The Roman Catholic dogma of Purgatory is based on faulty reasoning and assumptions, which in turn are apparently based on pagan practices or a Jewish and later Christian corruption of God’s Word.

There are a few major stages in the conception of Purgatory:

The second book of Maccabees is both the starting place as well as the final episode. It is the starting place because it is from chapter 12 that we learn that it is wholesome to pray for the dead. There is an extremely important fact of history regarding Maccabees as well as the other apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic Bible (which are not found in Protestant nor in Jewish Bibles). These books were not considered officially canonical until the Council of Trent 1545-1563 AD (see The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1031). When the printing press was invented people had the Bible translated into their common language (which the Roman Church forbade under the threat of capital punishment). Once people read the Bible for themselves they protested (Protestants) stating that the Roman Church was teaching things that the Bible did not, and that they were not teaching things that the Bible did. Possibly the most extreme incident of isogesis in history took place when the Roman Church took its preconceived notions and literally forced them into the Bible. In order to prove the protesters wrong, they inserted extra books that appeared to say what they were already teaching.

Inscriptions in which Christians pray to the dead have been found in Roman catacombs dating from the second and third century AD. One inscription reads, “Ask for us in thy prayers, for we know thou art with Christ.”[1] In 211 AD Tertullian wrote, “The faithful wife will pray for the soul of her deceased husband, particularly on the anniversary of his falling asleep. And if she fails to do so, she has repudiated her husband as far as in her lies.”[2] St. Augustine, born Nov. 13, 354 AD, record his dying mother’s words to him, “Put this body away anywhere. Don’t let care about it disturb you. I ask only this of you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord, wherever you may be.”[3]
“The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: ‘Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar.’”[4]

v A letter by Pope Innocent IV (1243-54) states, “In the Gospel, the Truth declares that whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this world or in the world to come (Mt. 12:32). By this it is to be understood that certain faults are pardoned in this life, and certain others in the life to come. Moreover, the Apostle says that ‘the fire will assay the quality of everyone’s work,’ and ‘if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet as through fire’ (1 Co. 3:13, 15).”[5] The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1032 states, “From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage from them, above all the Eucharist sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God [Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856].”
Here we see what is perhaps the first instance of the assumption on which Purgatory is based. There appears to have been a long history of praying for the dead. It was reasoned that those in heaven need no prayer and prayer cannot help those in hell. Therefore, a third state of existence after death must exist. From here the dogma of Purgatory was constructed. In reality, a long history of praying for and to the dead is really just a long history of a non-Biblical practice that the Church should have shunned rather than incorporated.

[1] John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Sons, nd.), p. 181
Nihil Obstat: C. Schut, D.D., Censor Deutatus. Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasteri, Die 21 Martii, 1922.
[2] Tertullian, The Crown (AD 211), 3, 2, quoted in W.A. Jurgens, ed., The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1970), p. 151
[3] John K. Ryan, trans., The Confessions of St. Augustine (New York: Image Books Doubleday, 1960), p. 223 (Book 9 ch. 11)
[4] New Advent, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII (Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight), Edward J. Hanna, Transcribed by William G. Bilton, Ph.D. Nihil Obstat: June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, newadvent.org
[5] Innocent IV, letter Sub Catholicae (Mar. 6, 1254)

2005-11-06T15:16:00.000-08:00

Roman Catholic

Definition of Purgatory

and the Biblical Teaching

Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J. wrote, “It is a fact of divine revelation that the soul of every person who dies in the state of grace, but without having made sufficient expiation of earth for his forgiven sins, will undergo the punishment and purification of Purgatory before entering Heaven…its pains are excruciating—greater then any suffering known on earth…they are adapted to the past sins of each individual soul…they can vary in duration from less than one minute to a period of several centuries….if we are not absolutely perfect at the time of our death, but yet not deserving of Hell, we shall all go to Purgatory.”[1]
The full and one time expiation for our sins was accomplished by Jesus, these sort of teachings are a plain and simple denial of this fact. Fr. Schouppe further stated that Purgatory “is a fact of divine revelation” but note that Fr. Schouppe states that for proof of Purgatory “we posses three very distinct sources of light: first, the dogmatic doctrine of the Church; then the doctrine as explained by the doctors of the Church; in the third place, the revelations and apparitions of the saints, which serve to confirm the teachings of the doctors.”[2]

From the New American Bible Fireside Family Edition:[3]
“That place or state of punishment where the souls of those who have died in the state of grace, but who still may have some unrepented venial sins or may have to make satisfaction for forgiven mortal sins, suffer until admitted into heaven. The Church proves the Doctrine of Purgatory. Sacred scripture, in the Old Testament, relates how Judas Maccabeus sent 12,000 drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the writer of the book wrote, ‘It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.’ Christ Himself inferred there are sins which can be forgiven after death: ‘And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven.’ That complete satisfaction must be made is noted by Christ, ‘I tell you, on the day of judgement people will render an account for every careless word they speak.’
Holy Scripture also tells us about heaven ‘nothing unclean will enter it, nor any [one] who does abominable things or tells lies.’ Therefore, it is logical to reason that a soul in the state of grace but with venial sin staining it must be cleansed of that venial sin before entering heaven.
In Purgatory the poor souls primarily suffer a pain of loss, because, while there, they cannot see the Beatific Vision. The realization that their sins alone prevent this happiness causes dreadful suffering. Too, knowing that the soul did not take advantage of any opportunities of purging it of sin while still living adds to the torture.
Belief in prayers for the dead------2 Mc 12:38-46
Christ’s words------------------------Mt 12:32
Nothing defiled in heaven----------Rv 21:27”

From The Catholic Catechism:
#1030 “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.”

#1032 “This teaching is also based upon 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.’ 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. [Cf. Council of Lyons II 91274): DS 856] The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and communicate 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.”

From the Council of Trent:
“Cannon XXX. Session VI. The Council of Trent. Jan. 13, 1547, If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted our to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged, either in this world or in Purgatory, before the gates of Heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.”

“Decree Concerning Purgatory. The Council of Trent. Session XXV. Dec. 4, 1563, Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the Acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar, the Holy Council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of Purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”

“Canons Concerning the Sacrament of Penance. The Council of Trent. Session XIV. Nov. 25, 1551,
Canon 12. If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema.
Canon 13. If anyone says that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is in no way made to God through the merits of Christ by the punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or by those imposed by the priest, or even those voluntarily undertaken, as by fasts, prayers, almsgiving or other works of piety, and that therefore the best penance is merely a new life, let him be anathema.
Canon 14. If anyone says that the satisfactions by which penitents atone for their sins through Christ are not a worship of God but traditions of men, which obscure the doctrine of grace and the true worship of God and the beneficence itself of the death of Christ, let him be anathema.
Canon 15. If anyone says that the keys have been given to the Church only to loose and not also to bind, and that therefore priests, when imposing penalties on those who confess, act contrary to the purpose of the keys and to the institution of Christ, and that it is a fiction that there remains often a temporal punishment to be discharged after the eternal punishment has by virtue of the keys been removed, let him be anathema.”

“Chapter IX—On the Works of Satisfaction. Session XIV. The Council of Trent. Nov. 25, 1551, It [the Council] teaches furthermore that the liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us.”

The Council of Trent has passed one hundred or more anathemas upon all those who disagree with it.

The Bible Teaches:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery…You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace…The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ‘A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.’ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be” (Galatians 5:1, 4, 6-9).
The context of the text is freedom from the Jewish Law but the concepts may be applied to various legalistic dogmas such as Purgatory. We have been set free by grace through faith but have been burdened again; kept from the clear Biblical teaching to believe and obey a concept that did not come from the one who calls us, God. Whoever has done this to us will pay the penalty regardless of their rank and position.

Oddly enough, if Purgatory is true, then it is missing from some key verses where we should expect to find it. If it is true it is glossed over so completely in the Bible that it necessitates doubt. Here we will explain the verses according to what we should expect to find if Purgatory existed.

The LORD “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:10-12).
In order to make sense the concept of Purgatory must be inserted all over this text. It should not just make a blanket statement about removal of sins but should clearly state that this is only after suffering in Purgatory.

Jesus said, “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4).
This work was not completed because we must suffer for our own sins in Purgatory.

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1st John 2:2).
Even though the verse is written in the singular “He is the,” it should say that we are all the atoning sacrifice since we all must suffer not only in this world but also in Purgatory.

“God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2nd Corinthians 5:21).
Why is He made sin for us since we are still made to suffer for those sins?

“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ…I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith” (Philippians 3:7-9).
We do gain our own righteousness by good works and suffering.

“I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (Philippians 1:23).
“Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2nd Corinthians 5:6-8).
In these two cases we should have been told that we would suffer in Purgatory and only eventually be with Christ in between leaving our bodies and reaching Heaven.

“To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy” (Jude 24).
This should state that we are presented faultless by our own suffering in Purgatory.

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Ephesians 1:4).
“holy and blameless” by our own suffering in Purgatory.

“Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies” (Romans 8:33-34).
Jesus Himself our Judge will bring charges against us in sending us to Purgatory.

“God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).
The concept of Purgatory must be inserted all over this text or else we would mistakenly think that Jesus forgave us by His sacrifice on the cross and no longer holds anything against us.

“May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1st Thessalonians 5:23).
It is by our own suffering after death sanctifies us through and through and we are certainly not kept blameless.

“because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Hebrews 10:14).
Employing Purgatorial isogesis this verse should read “those who are being made holy by suffering for their own sins in Purgatory.”

“Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2nd Corinthians 12:14).
As far as the dogma of Purgatory is concerned this verse should read that when the Apostles went to visit they would collect money, even from the elderly on minimal and fixed incomes by threatening them with Dark Age tactics.

“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:25-27).
This text should read that the punishment is ours to suffer and not forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ.

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness…if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1st John 1:7-9, 2:1-2).
Again, the singular language “He is” should not have been used. Purgatory unashamedly denies that Jesus purifies us from all sin.

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).
This is just not true because if it were then it would mean that there is no suffering left to do in Purgatory.

The Bottom Line:
We can bottom line the whole entire issue of Purgatory by pointing out the main factor of the Roman Catholic claim for why Purgatory is necessary. They believe that sinful man, even a forgiven believer, is still so imperfect at the time of his death that we could not possibly go directly before God. Thus, they claim that we need somewhere to spend some time and be purified, which is where Purgatory comes in. This sort of reasoning is religious philosophy, the sort of philosophy that Scripture warns us against, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Let us explore some basic concepts that God wants us to understand.
“it is appointed for men to die once, but AFTER THIS THE JUDGMENT, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, APART FROM SIN, for salvation” (Hebrews 9:27-28).
Clearly, we die and go directly to be judged. Moreover, we, still living imperfect people, are being told that when Jesus comes again He will not deal with sin since He dealt with it once and for all the first time.

“we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY AND TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD” (2nd Corinthians 5:6-8).
Clearly, once we die we are present with the Lord.

And now we will quote a text of Scripture that is the stake that is to be driven into the heart of the vampire of Purgatory.
Ì “little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and NOT BE ASHAMED BEFORE HIM at His coming…Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, JUST AS He is pure” (1st John 2:28, 3:1-3).
Clearly, we see that absolutely regardless of the philosophies of Roman Catholicism there are some things that we can know with absolute certainty. Remember that the bottom line was that Catholicism believes that man is still too imperfect at the time of death that we could not possibly go directly before God.

But the above quoted revelation states:
1. We can be confident about meeting Jesus and not be ashamed before Him.
2. Most importantly and most damaging to the Roman Catholic argument is that when we still living imperfect people who are alive when Jesus returns see Him WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM. We will instantly be like Him in the blink of an eye no if, ands or buts. An instant indwelling, instant outworking of the sinless perfection that Jesus bought for us. “…we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…” (1st Corinthians 15:51-52).
3. We who follow Him purify ourselves and become as pure as Jesus, what an amazing thought. And as we have seen, while this purity is built upon over a lifetime, there will definitely come a time when we will be transformed instantly.

[1] Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J., Purgatory, Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints (Rockford, IL.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1926, 1991 ed.), p. back cover & 433. Nihil Obstat: H.M. Bayley, Censor deputatus. Imprimatur: +Herbetus Cardinal Vaughan, Archiep. Westmonasterien, 10-11-1893.
[2] Fr. Schouppe, p. xxxiv
[3] The New American Bible Fireside Family Edition. Approved at the Vatican, by Pope Paul VI on 9-18-70. Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and approved by the Administrative Committee / Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference. (Wichita, Kansas: Devore and Sons, inc. 1981 & 87)