Purgatory part 2

Sorry for the delay in responding; issues with my sister's plans to visit vs. the London scare are among the distractions to this blog.

Anyways, just a little thing about Machabees. I fully appreciate the points you made about recording Judas' actions vs. giving them theological basis. Catholics and Protestants will never agree on this. I would only add that the Machabees were fighting a cultural war trying to preserve the Law of Moses (the foundation of Christ's teachings) as they knew it against Antiochus' attempts at Hellenization. That the author of Machabees mentioned this incident of "prayers for the dead" seems significant. Here is Judas offering prayers for the dead, which their Hellenic enemies also did in their own way (e.g., the coins on the eyes to pay Charon). The Machabees didn't object to this, even though it was a ritual similar to Antiochus' culture. So it may indicate that this tradition was not a new one for Jews. Is it a proof of Purgatory? Not an absolute one, but it is an indication of it in the Bible.

As to the second biblical indication I mentioned, it was actually Mt. 12:32. I remember my Religion IV teacher (Fr. DeLallo, I think) telling me that when Jesus talked about the sinner who could not be forgiven "either in this age or in the age to come", it implies a type of expiation after death. Now of course, this begs Xapis' original question of what exactly Catholics think Purgatory is, but I'll have to get to that at my next post.

In the meantime, I did some digging in some of my religion books for biblical indications. Please keep in mind that Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, so the doctrine of Purgatory isn't based solely on these passages.

Some Catholic theologians use I. Cor. 3: 15 as another indication of purgatory: "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." The argument goes that the while St. Paul is talking about divine retribution, he mentions a "fire" through which a soul can be saved. It can't be hell, the argument continues, so it must indicate Purgatory.
Now, many exegetes don't subscribe to this interpretation, and at best it's an indication instead of a proof of Purgatory, but again, Catholics don't look for it solely in the Bible.

Another passage that is open to different interpretations (well, what part of scripture isn't?) is 1 Peter 3: 19-20, when he says "[Christ] also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the day s of Noah..." Now, this is mainly used as an argument for the idea of Limbo (let's not go there yet), but it does indicate a "3rd state" between Hell and Heaven, which Catholics believe Purgatory is.

To prevent this from getting too long, I'll leave the writings of the Church Fathers for later.

Pax.
Iggy

Welcome Back

Nice to hear from you!!

Let's first look at the II Mach. 12:46 verse. To be sure, this is not common ground between Prod and Cath (nor between first century followers of Judaism and modern Catholics, as this was not considered a part of the TANAK, or Hebrew Scriptures), however let's look at it anyway.
I would suggest the the reference itself (as is often the case with Scripture Prods would hold dear) is that it does not say that what Judas M did was right, it simply records what he did. He was concerned for his dead soldiers who were found with foreign gods under their cloaks. Fearing that they would not be accepted by God in the afterlife, he collected money for an expiatory sacrifice to be made in Jerusalem (vs 43). He then prayed for the atonement of the dead. Although the text describes Judas as being noble and pious in his thoughts, it does not necessarily mean his actions were correct. He could very well have been misguided.

As for your Matthew 5:7, argument, I do not think that is the reference you meant.

Purgatory 101 part 1

Sorry to Xapis and the rest of you. I've been in Nanaimo for a bit, so I've not been able to be up to date on the blog.

Anyways, I'm going to try to explain this without too much verbiage.

My Protestant friends like to have Scripture first, and I'll gladly oblige. Unfortunately, there isn't much common ground like there is in the idea of Justification (the joint Catholic-Lutheran declaration makes some interesting reading: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html).
There were 2 verses I remember learning about in Religion IV (my school's version of CE 12).
The firest was 2 Mach. 12: 46, which already most Protestants see as apocryphal. In it, Judas Maccabeus prepares a sacrifice for his dead soldiers after a battle vs. Antiochus' troops. "It is therefore a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins."
The second is a relatively obscure passage out of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Mt. 5: 7), when Jesus talks about the sins against the Holy Spirit. "He that shall speak against the Holy Spirity, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, or in the world to come", which some Catholic theologians see as indicating that something can be forgiven after death.

As for post-evangelical stuff, I have to look it up, but I believe Catholic theologians cite Tertullian and St. Augustine.

I'll start off with that. As for the nature of it and its connection to All Souls' Day and other Catholic devotions, I'll wait for my next blog. Be warned, folks: if you don't like my analogies (e.g., Yeshua Inc. and the Apple Tree Image), look away.

Pax.
Iggy

The Greeks!!

This post is for my hijo, A***. Miss ya buddy!

Iggy,

Can you please give me the full explanation of purgatory? Where and when did the doctrine begin? How does it fit with scripture? How does it fit in with prayers for the souls of the dead? I must admit, I do not know exactly what Catholics believe in this case, and can therefore not discuss it until I have some fact.
My quick comment would be that as a gospel believing Christian, I am unsure how such a doctrine can fit in with the rest of what the Bible teaches.

Strange New World

Sorry it has been a while.

I am sitting in the Phoenix airport, on my way back from Chihuahua, Mexico. I have spent the past week teaching, driving, hiking in canyons, battling poisonous spiders and scorpions(not kidding), but I have now reached civilization.

Iggy, that is an awesome question.

When I first arrived at the school that shall remain nameless, I knew very little about the Catholic faith. All I knew was that when I was dating a Catholic girl for a while as a teenager, and the picture of Pope John Paul II hanging in the dining room kinda freaked me out.

Truthfully, when I first arrived, I thought everything that I was not familiar with was silly. I basically went to everything I had to and begrudgingly sat through it. However, as time went by, I began to appreciate SOME of what I experienced. For instance, although some of the Mass was uncomfortable for me (for obvious reasons), what it is, in fact, is a long prayer. When I began to accept this, I was able to partake in the majority of it with out to many interruptions. (sorry to all you "the pope is the anti-Christ" protestants out there, but I am convinced that I am worshipping the same Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as my Catholic brother and sisters).
However, what I still find difficult to grasp is the seeming inability for my Catholic brothers and sisters to just talk to their Creator. Everything seems to be mapped out and unless one is told what to say, there is silence. I understand why there may be a need for liturgy, but if Nietzsche is wrong, and God is in fact very much alive, let us talk to him one on one. Stop relying on saints of the past and tell him what is on your heart. He went through a hell of a lot to make it possible (I am not swearing here but using it in its proper sense.
That is all for now. I know it is quick and kind of sporadic, but it is a little noisy in the airport, and I am having a difficult time typing up on my friends laptop.

You have entered into...the Catholic Zone (*Twilight Zone theme plays*)

While Xapis is away to help Mexican children learn the Bible (no seriously, that's what he's doing...ain't he a great guy?), the rest of you (is there a "rest of you"?) would be wondering what I could possibly bring up. We've already had some discussion about justification and veneration to Mary and the saints; these are touchy subjects, but while we still disagree on stuff, nobody got hurt (except for a mosquito that drifted between me and the computer screen...stupid bug, you go squish now).

All this brought back a memory from my UBC days. I was in Prof. Paul Burns' History of Christian Thought class, and surprise surprise, there was a group of us in the back, some of whom were Evangelicals and others Catholics. After the lecture, we'd talk about things from time to time, and Prof. Burns (being a laicized priest) joined in the discussion. One Protestant girl brought up the divinity of Christ, and somewhere along the line, she revealed that she thought Catholics don't worship Jesus. When we told her that we actually did, she seemed surprised.
The point of this memory was that I got to thinking: I've made assumptions about Protestant belief which were less accurate than I thought (case in point: Xapis' ideas on justification are a lot more similar to mine than I would have thought). So, I'm wondering what assumptions do Protestants have about our beliefs? As for you, Xapis, I'm more specifically curious on what you thought you were getting yourself into when you started working in a Catholic school.

So, there's the question. I leave it open to our audience (is that a cricket I hear, and what's this tumbleweed doing here?) to take the next step.

Pax.
Iggy Hoo

Sola Something

Two quick responses to your last post.
First, if you are saying that faith is only one way to take advantage of God's gift of salvation, I think we have a strong disagreement. In Romans 4, Paul makes a very strong argument about righteousness (a word we've over-used to mean "morally right", which fact is a forensic courtroom term to pronounce one"in right standing" with the law). In the chapter he argues that Abraham was "in right standing with God" because of his faith, NOT because of anything he may have done otherwise. Dare I say (I won't go all Latin on you ) Faith only.
One might argue that although Abraham is being talked about as being "in right standing with God" because of Faith, doesn't mean that we are to use the same means. However, that is the entire point of Paulo's argument. If we (Gentiles, not law followers; or Jews, law followers) want to be in the same position with God as Abraham was, we need to take him at his word, in faith. Abraham did this concerning the promises God made to him; first about a son, and further about a new land, multitude of descendants, and a promised land. We, Paul argues, are to do this with the promise of salvation.
Second, I seem to be missing something that you will need to explain to me (this is not sarcasm). I am not sure where this list of three unattainable virtues came from but (can you tell me) it would seem to me (speaking again from a biblical standpoint, which I do not apologize for) I would have to argue that faith and hope seem to be two virtues that humans can definitely attain, and not much else(see "Hall of Faith" list in Hebrews 11); never perfectly but, I think easier than prudence, etc.
With the above in mind, I would argue for the complete inability of humanity to accomplish any virtue properly. Thus, arguing that some are attainable and others are not seems a little strange. Just because we find one easier than another does not mean it's attainable. If we break one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking the entire law.