Is Purgatory, Limbo, and Hades, bascally Greek Myths or just Mistranslation.

[Illuminator]

Proof for the Scriptural nature of Purgatory can be found by comparing Luke 16:19-31 with Luke 23:43. In Luke 16, Jesus speaks of the poor man Lazarus being taken up to the "Bosom of Abraham." However, despite what is commonly presumed, this cannot be Heaven, since souls did not enter Heaven at this time (not even according to Jewish theology), but awaited Jesus' death, Resurrection, and Ascension for this.

Until the Lord opens the gates of Heaven ("I go to prepare a place for you"), it was not possible for humanity to enter into the Presence of God. Rather, the God-man needed to do this first in order to make a place for humanity before the Throne of the Father. Rather, this "Bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16 is what Jewish oral tradition refers to as "the Paradise of the Fathers" --the Garden of Eden, which was withdrawn from the earth.

Now, ... To show that this is the case, one only need to look at Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the Good Thief, " **This day** you will be with me **in Paradise.** " Notice, here, that Jesus does not say, " ...in Heaven." ...And this is because, as we all know, Jesus did NOT go to Heaven THAT DAY. Rather, Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb!

...Not rising until Sunday morning. ...And we know from Scripture (e.g. 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6) that Jesus' soul spent **that day** AMONG THE DEAD in Sheol. ...And, as John 20:17 hammers home for us, EVEN ON SUNDAY MORNING, Jesus had STILL "not yet ascended to the Father."

So, the "Paradise" Jesus is talking about in Luke 23 is **absolutely** not Heaven itself. Rather, He is talking about the Paradise of the Fathers, and he is promising the Good Thief (a justly-condemned Jewish criminal) that, far from being condemned to Gehenna, he will be with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the righteous patriarchs (models of Judaism) in the Paradise of the Fathers. And this would have been enough for this Jew to die in peace --saved from hell, yet not fully-sanctified so as to immediately enter Heaven.

 

[Hobie]

You miss the point. If a person steals a car, the consequences is having to give it back, and/or pay a fine. Jesus doesn't say it's ok to keep the car.

Could you be specific? Everything the Church formally teaches is available on line.


That lie has been debunked since Calvin invented it. It has been explained repeatedly why it is a lie.

Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie argue that the Catholic dogma of purgatory “in effect denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death.” They quote biblical passages that speak of the sufficient nature of Christ’s work on the cross (John 17:4, 19:30; Heb. 10:14) and conclude, “To affirm that we must suffer for our own sins is the ultimate insult to Christ’s atoning sacrifice” (emphasis added).

Geisler and MacKenzie object to the idea that Christians experience some negative consequences for their sins. But they don’t explain why this is an insult to Christ’s atoning sacrifice. (and neither does FoftheG) Others have tried, suggesting, for example, that the suffering in purgatory atones for the eternal punishment of sin, something only Christ can do. Still others have said that suffering for our sins in purgatory contradicts the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross because Christ’s death makes it unnecessary for Christians ever to suffer for their sins.

Does either theory have any merit?

Let’s start with the first one: the sufferings in purgatory supposedly atone for the eternal punishment of sin.

People who believe this are simply mistaken as to what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory and atonement. Purgatory has to do with freeing us from the “temporal punishment of sin” (CCC 1472), not eternal punishment. Purgatory is a final purification of “the elect” (CCC 1031), those for whom eternal punishment has already been remitted by Christ’s atoning death.

The soul in purgatory is on its way to heaven, having already received the grace of salvation: fruit of the sufficient work of Christ on the cross. Purgatory is merely for the sake of making up for temporal consequences due to sin that remain after death.

Let’s now turn to the second reason why some people have suggested that purgatory undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross: Christ’s death on the cross makes it unnecessary for Christians ever to suffer for their sins.

This belief doesn’t match up with the biblical data. Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, where Paul describes how the works of a Christian are being tested:

For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.​

This is a go-to passage for many Catholics in support of purgatory. But that aside, for our present purposes it at least portrays a Christian undergoing some form of suffering on account of bad works performed.

In this passage, Paul is clearly talking about a Christian (building on the foundation of Jesus). The “wood,” “hay,” and “straw” that are burned up represent the bad works (or sins) for which the Christian suffers “loss.” That the Christian will be saved “only as through fire” suggests that Christians will experience negative consequences for their sins.

We could also look at Hebrews 12:6, 10:

The Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. . . . [He] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.​

​

Notice that God chastises “every son whom he receives”—that’s to say, God disciplines Christians. But being “chastised” involves some sort of suffering for bad behavior. The Greek word for “chastise,” mastigoō, literally means to “lash,” “whip,” “flog,” or “scourge” for the sake of punishment. Therefore, God wills that Christians suffer for their sins.

The author of Hebrews also tells us the end to which such suffering is ordered: “for our good, that we may share his holiness.” So God doesn’t punish his children merely to reform external behavior but for conformity to his holiness. He chastises us so that we may become holy like him.

As in 1 Corinthians, we have a case of a Christian suffering for sins. Hebrews adds the end to which the suffering is ordered: sanctification. For the author of Hebrews, then, a Christian suffering for sins in order to be sanctified and the sufficient work of Christ on the cross are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, it’s because of Christ’s sacrifice for us that we can be sanctified (made holy) through our suffering in the first place. Without Christ’s death on the cross, our suffering for past sins would be to no avail.

And just as Christ’s death on the cross makes sanctification through suffering possible in this life, so too it makes possible our final sanctification in the next. As Jimmy Akin puts it, “His [Jesus] sufferings paid the price for us to be sanctified, and his sufferings paid the price for the whole of our sanctification—both the initial and final parts.”

Purgatory doesn’t contradict the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross. It depends on it.
source

Notice Paul says "for the Day", he was referring to the day of the end, not daylight or morning.

 

[Hobie]

The Jews revered Abraham to the point that they thought they would be 'in the bosom of Abraham' rather than with God, so Christ used it make a point to the Pharisees, using a parable. As very true Jesus did not go to Paradise after His death that day as He was buried and remained in the tomb until His resurrection. The day of His resurrection He appeared to Mary, stating that He had “not yet ascended to My Father” but that now He was ascending to "My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God”.

John 20:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The obvious implication is that He could not have promised the thief that He would be with him in Paradise on Friday. and Jesus and the thief did not die at the same time as Jesus died Friday and the thief was still alive, and his legs were broken to keep him from escaping as it usually took several days for those who were crucified to die. As for the Pharisees, here is a good explanation:

The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus is considered the most reliable extra-biblical literary source for Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest with the dates for Caiaphas' tenure of the high priesthood.

According to Josephus, Caiaphas was appointed in AD 18 by the Roman prefect who preceded Pontius Pilate, Valerius Gratus.

Joseph was the son-in-law of Annas (also called Ananus) the son of Seth. Annas was deposed, but had five sons who served as high priest after him. The terms of Annas, Caiaphas, and the five brothers are:

• Ananus (or Annas) the son of Seth (6–15)
• Eleazar the son of Ananus (16–17)
• Caiaphas - properly called Joseph son of Caiaphas (18–36), who had married the daughter of Annas (John 18:13)
• Jonathan the son of Ananus (36–37 and 44)
• Theophilus ben Ananus (37–41)
• Matthias ben Ananus (43)
• Ananus ben Ananus (63)

One identification is that the man in torment in the parable is Caiaphas the High Priest which as Josephus tells us had five brothers. Caiaphas met the criteria Jesus gives in the parable to the identity of the Rich Man. He was rich, and as the high priest was dressed in purple and fine linen, he had five brothers, and was well versed in Moses and the Prophets, but according to Jesus, were ignoring what they wrote.

The Pharisees believed that blessings and prosperity came from God for strict obedience to the law and that poverty and illness were the results of sin. So lepers, beggars and the poor were paying for their sins. So we are left with the picture that innocent Lazarus is given unto Abraham's bosom, but the Pharisee, and his five brothers, are given unto torment because they ignore the law. Jesus attacked the Pharisee hypocrisy regularly, and as the Pharisees believed just the opposite, the parable was against them.

The conviction that this is not a literal account of the states of the dead, but a kind of parable, or symbolic narrative, becomes a certainty when it is realized that all these details were part of the tradition of the Pharisees at the time, as Josephus shows in his 'Discourse Concerning Hades'. So Jesus was employing some of his opponents own ideas to confound them.

 

[Cassandra]

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees.
One area was Abrahams bosom, the other a place of punishment.

God forbade communication from the dead to the living, so why does the Rich man ask Lazarus to go down to his brothers?
The Rich man represents the Pharisees, and the sons of the Father, Abraham. the 5 brothers were: Scribes, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, Essenes.

Luke 6:27-30 "
'27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent."


But the brothers HAD Moses and the prophets! Jesus says (John 5:45-46) "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."


And He adds on that they would not believe, even though one were raised from the dead.Luke 16:31 " “He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' ”.

And Lazarus was raised after this story.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Bible itself took 4 centuries to develop. You refute yourself.

Wrong. The bible was completed by the end of the first century and most of the books were being circulated amoungt the various churches. Its funny though how every argument with Romish apologist always comes back to an attack on Scripture. Kinda gets the old noggin joggin eh?

Not if the essential core of truths remain constant. Development is not "change".

I the case of purgatory it most certainly is a change and its not a truth its a fiction.

Newman proved development of doctrine as always being there, he didn't invent it.

Welp, that's not what the Council of Trent taught. Are you saying this decree has been abrogated? I thought Rome's position is that Trent was an infallible dogmatic ecumenical council of the Church. Are you suggesting there is an error in the infallible council and its decrees?


The sacred and holy, œcumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth, and discipline of morals; and perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; [the synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,—seeing that one God is the author of both, as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.


Buckley, T. A. (1851). The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (pp. 17–18). George Routledge and Co.

The decree is stating that these traditions come from the mouth of Christ of the Apostles themselves. Meaning they did not develop.

Chalcedon, COUNCIL OF, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from October 8 until November 1 inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council’s attention.

Scarcely had the heresy of Nestorius concerning the two persons in Christ been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when the opposite error of the Nestorian heresy arose. Since Nestorius so fully divided the Divine and the human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God-man, not as two beings but as one.

Some of these opponents in their efforts to maintain a physical unity in Christ held that the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the human, were so intimately united that they became physically one, inasmuch as the human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine. Thus resulted one Christ, not only with one personality but also with one nature. After the Incarnation, they said, no distinction could be made in Christ between the Divine and the human. The principal representatives of this teaching were Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an archimandrite or president of a monastery outside Constantinople. The Monophysitic error, as the new doctrine was called (Gr.mon? phusis, one nature), claimed the authority of St. Cyril, but only through a misinterpretation of some expressions of the great Alexandrine teacher.

Lets see what the council actually wrote in the Symbol of Chalcedon:


We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.

As you can see this is simply orthodox christology that no magisterial Protestant denies. The Symbol is easily found by reading the Scriptures. If one is convesant in the scriptures one can easily see that the council fathers are taking the teaching of scripture and putting the same into credal form.

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of original sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then original sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if original sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must purgatory be accepted. [“Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?”

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn’t need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural; Protestants deny that it is). [A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, May 1996]

Two things, first if Newman is right than Trent must be wrong. Which creates a whole host of issues for Rome. Of course most Protestants have never read the decrees and canons of the council of Trent so they may not know just how different Rome's apologetic approach is today to what Rome was saying just a century or so ago. Which brings to my next point. It is clear that Rome has changed through out history which is why I reject romish claims. And I don't mean a practice here or a discipline there but I mean wholesale change and we are seeing it real time with Francis. If a man like Francis was around at the time of say Pious V, Francis would have been burned at the stake. My Catechism of the Catholic Church Which I purchased in 2003 is now out of date because of the changes Francis has made. So to suggest that Rome is the ancient church simply does not hold water.

Original sin is clearly taught in Scripture most pointedly by Paul in Rom 3:9-18.

 

[Athanasius377]

Are the Trinitarian and Christological formulations offensive? Do you at least accept the Nicene Creed? It took up to 5 centuries for the Trinitarian and Christological formulations to mature, thanks to challenging heresies. How is that not development?

I accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed along with the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon as great ecumenical creeds. I accept the creeds because they are a clear and concise exposition of what Scripture clearly teaches. Apart from Scripture the creeds have no value. That is because the creeds get their authority from Scripture not the church.

Chalcedon was a long and complicated council. None of the fathers of Chalcedon were sola scripturists.

Yet the council's findings are easy enough to understand that's why they composed the Symbol and the creed. As to being sola scripturaist I have no idea what you are referring to. If I were to guess its the same old Romish canard of me and my bible under a tree. Add to that I never suggested that they were or were not operating under that assumption.

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of original sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then original sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if original sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must purgatory be accepted. [“Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?”

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn’t need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural; Protestants deny that it is). [A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, May 1996]

Can you demonstrate from orthodox sources where the doctrine of purgatory is taught in the first four centuries of the church?

 

[Illuminator]

I accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed along with the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon as great ecumenical creeds. I accept the creeds because they are a clear and concise exposition of what Scripture clearly teaches. Apart from Scripture the creeds have no value. That is because the creeds get their authority from Scripture not the church.

The creeds get their authority from both.

Yet the council's findings are easy enough to understand that's why they composed the Symbol and the creed. As to being sola scripturaist I have no idea what you are referring to. If I were to guess its the same old Romish canard of me and my bible under a tree. Add to that I never suggested that they were or were not operating under that assumption.

Can you demonstrate from orthodox sources where the doctrine of purgatory is taught in the first four centuries of the church?

That's over my head. I don't see two separate churches in the first 4 centuries of the church, but I found this:

Granted, some well respected private revelations portray purgatory as no picnic. But if we’re talking about official teaching, the Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a physical location experienced in time with a literal fire. As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, purgatory, for Catholics, is best seen as an encounter with Christ—not a literal fire experienced temporally:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves.

Contrast this with the Eastern Orthodox priest and apologist Fr. Andrew Damick’s concept of “Catholic purgatory”:

Orthodoxy agrees that there is a certain purgation needed for the souls of the departed destined for heaven, but that experience has never been codified with the temporal model of years of suffering employed by Rome in the purgatory doctrine.

But do Eastern Orthodox have a similar concept in their tradition to the real Catholic teaching on purgatory? Oddly enough, the Orthodox have synodally affirmed the concept of purgatory hook, line, and sinker! The Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672), states in no uncertain terms:

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented—by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. [Their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed.​

​

Since the Orthodox lack an objectively identifiable teaching authority, some Orthodox today reject this synodal teaching on purgatory as authoritative in Orthodoxy. However, Orthodox scholars, such as Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, affirm (albeit unintentionally) the Catholic view of purgatory even without appealing to the Synod of Jerusalem. After going to great length to deny what he perceives to be the Catholic view, Staniloae presents the Orthodox view of the afterlife He states,

This makes it possible for those in hell who are not radically different from those on the lowest levels of paradise to pass over to paradise before the Last Judgment, through the prayers of the saints and those on earth. . . . Up until the Last Judgement, those in hell who do not totally lack faith in Christ can also be moved to the paradise of communion with Christ. . . . These are persons who through their kindness and their reduced faith did not commit acts that damaged the life and salvation of others—acts such as homicide; abortions; unbecoming sexuality outside marriage; depriving others of necessary things . . . or those who repented of these things before death but not in a degree corresponding to their evil deeds.​

​

In other words, there are some who die with faith in Christ, but are imperfectly penitent. These souls can be aided by the prayers of the faithful, which will result in them being transitioned from hell to heaven before the Final Judgment. This is exactly the Catholic view of purgatory, as hell can refer to purgatory in Catholic theology, among its other usages. The Catholic view also says there is no postmortem repentance for those who die impenitent, but Staniloae is careful to note this transition is only for those who have repented of grave sins before death, though imperfectly. The group Staniloae describes refers not to those who die without repentance (the damned), nor to those who die perfectly penitent (the blessed)—but to a third group that dies in a state of imperfection. Simply put, this is what Catholicism identifies as the souls in purgatory.

In summary, many Orthodox often take great pains to deny the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, even to the extent of denying their own councils—but the concept of purgation still finds its way into Orthodox theology. This means that the Orthodox may think they have a significantly different view of the afterlife compared to Catholics, but in reality, they hold to a doctrine that is essentially the same as the Catholic position on purgatory. And so the road to Catholic unity may be shorter than the average Orthodox realizes.
source

 

[Athanasius377]

The creeds get their authority from both.

Let me be more precise. The creeds get their ultimate authority from the Scriptures.

That's over my head. I don't see two separate churches in the first 4 centuries of the church, but I found this:

Granted, some well respected private revelations portray purgatory as no picnic. But if we’re talking about official teaching, the Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a physical location experienced in time with a literal fire. As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, purgatory, for Catholics, is best seen as an encounter with Christ—not a literal fire experienced temporally:

See, this is another area where Rome has changed her teaching. First, a few posts ago you were arguing that purgatory was the fire in 1 cor 3 and now you are saying that it not fire. As to the location it might interest you that St. Robert Bellarmine writing in his Doctrina Christiana, a 16th century catechism from which the Baltimore catechism was based on, gives us the location of Purgatory. The Baltimore catechism is the very catechism I was taught from. Bellarmine is a doctor of the church, a declared saint, and the patron of Catechists yet you are saying he is wrong? Lets se what he has to say:

EXPLANATION OF THE FIFTH ARTICLE. In the fifth article it is said, "He descended to hell, on the third day He rose again from the dead," I desire to know what hell means there? T. Hell is the lowest and deepest place in the whole world, that is, the center. Additionally, in many places Scripture opposes Heaven to hell, as if it were the highest place to the lowest place. Moreover, in that abyss of the earth there are four distinct caverns, or four great receptacles. One of the damned, which is the deepest; thus it is fitting that the proud devils, and the men that follow them, are in the lowest and deepest place that can be found. In the second cavern, which is a little higher, are those souls who receive the punishment of purgatory and they are found even now. In the third, which is still higher than the first two, are the souls of children who die without baptism; these are not tormented by the eternal fire, but only the punishment of loss, i.e. they undergo the loss of the beatific vision. In the fourth, which is higher than the other three, there lived the souls of the Patriarchs, Prophets and other Holy Men that had died before the coming of Christ. Even if these souls had no need of purgation, nevertheless, they could not enter into glory until Christ had unsealed the gates of eternal life by His death. This is why, as long as they were compelled to stay in that place, which is called the limbo of the Fathers, or the bosom of Abraham, which they lived insofar as they were away from punishment, they could rest in joyful quiet waiting for the coming of the Lord with great jubilation.

Doctrina Christiana, Robert Bellarmine, Mediatrix Press Kindle edition 2016.

Here's what doesn't make sense. Purgatory is a place where those with venial sins are directed to in order to expiate their sins and receive the temporal punishment of their sin yet purgatory is not temporal? Second, The late Pope Benedict XVI says its not a temporal and physical location so who is right? Isn't this what the magisterium of the church is for?

But do Eastern Orthodox have a similar concept in their tradition to the real Catholic teaching on purgatory? Oddly enough, the Orthodox have synodally affirmed the concept of purgatory hook, line, and sinker! The Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672), states in no uncertain terms:

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented—by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. [Their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed.Since the Orthodox lack an objectively identifiable teaching authority, some Orthodox today reject this synodal teaching on purgatory as authoritative in Orthodoxy. However, Orthodox scholars, such as Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, affirm (albeit unintentionally) the Catholic view of purgatory even without appealing to the Synod of Jerusalem. After going to great length to deny what he perceives to be the Catholic view, Staniloae presents the Orthodox view of the afterlife He states,
This makes it possible for those in hell who are not radically different from those on the lowest levels of paradise to pass over to paradise before the Last Judgment, through the prayers of the saints and those on earth. . . . Up until the Last Judgement, those in hell who do not totally lack faith in Christ can also be moved to the paradise of communion with Christ. . . . These are persons who through their kindness and their reduced faith did not commit acts that damaged the life and salvation of others—acts such as homicide; abortions; unbecoming sexuality outside marriage; depriving others of necessary things . . . or those who repented of these things before death but not in a degree corresponding to their evil deeds.In other words, there are some who die with faith in Christ, but are imperfectly penitent. These souls can be aided by the prayers of the faithful, which will result in them being transitioned from hell to heaven before the Final Judgment. This is exactly the Catholic view of purgatory, as hell can refer to purgatory in Catholic theology, among its other usages. The Catholic view also says there is no postmortem repentance for those who die impenitent, but Staniloae is careful to note this transition is only for those who have repented of grave sins before death, though imperfectly. The group Staniloae describes refers not to those who die without repentance (the damned), nor to those who die perfectly penitent (the blessed)—but to a third group that dies in a state of imperfection. Simply put, this is what Catholicism identifies as the souls in purgatory.

In summary, many Orthodox often take great pains to deny the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, even to the extent of denying their own councils—but the concept of purgation still finds its way into Orthodox theology. This means that the Orthodox may think they have a significantly different view of the afterlife compared to Catholics, but in reality, they hold to a doctrine that is essentially the same as the Catholic position on purgatory. And so the road to Catholic unity may be shorter than the average Orthodox realizes.

I am really not concerned with what the Eastern Orthodox say or do not say. If i were you I wouldn't either for two reasons. First, the most virulent anti-catholic polemics do not come from some wild eyed KJV only IFB types it comes from the Eastern Orthodox. Second, the EO don't "do" theology or apologetics the same why you and I do. The EO have a completely different set of assumptions and framework that they operate from.

 

[Hobie]

The creeds get their authority from both.

That's over my head. I don't see two separate churches in the first 4 centuries of the church, but I found this:

Granted, some well respected private revelations portray purgatory as no picnic. But if we’re talking about official teaching, the Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is a physical location experienced in time with a literal fire. As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, purgatory, for Catholics, is best seen as an encounter with Christ—not a literal fire experienced temporally:


Contrast this with the Eastern Orthodox priest and apologist Fr. Andrew Damick’s concept of “Catholic purgatory”:

But do Eastern Orthodox have a similar concept in their tradition to the real Catholic teaching on purgatory? Oddly enough, the Orthodox have synodally affirmed the concept of purgatory hook, line, and sinker! The Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672), states in no uncertain terms:

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented—by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. [Their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed.​

​

Since the Orthodox lack an objectively identifiable teaching authority, some Orthodox today reject this synodal teaching on purgatory as authoritative in Orthodoxy. However, Orthodox scholars, such as Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, affirm (albeit unintentionally) the Catholic view of purgatory even without appealing to the Synod of Jerusalem. After going to great length to deny what he perceives to be the Catholic view, Staniloae presents the Orthodox view of the afterlife He states,

This makes it possible for those in hell who are not radically different from those on the lowest levels of paradise to pass over to paradise before the Last Judgment, through the prayers of the saints and those on earth. . . . Up until the Last Judgement, those in hell who do not totally lack faith in Christ can also be moved to the paradise of communion with Christ. . . . These are persons who through their kindness and their reduced faith did not commit acts that damaged the life and salvation of others—acts such as homicide; abortions; unbecoming sexuality outside marriage; depriving others of necessary things . . . or those who repented of these things before death but not in a degree corresponding to their evil deeds.​

​

In other words, there are some who die with faith in Christ, but are imperfectly penitent. These souls can be aided by the prayers of the faithful, which will result in them being transitioned from hell to heaven before the Final Judgment. This is exactly the Catholic view of purgatory, as hell can refer to purgatory in Catholic theology, among its other usages. The Catholic view also says there is no postmortem repentance for those who die impenitent, but Staniloae is careful to note this transition is only for those who have repented of grave sins before death, though imperfectly. The group Staniloae describes refers not to those who die without repentance (the damned), nor to those who die perfectly penitent (the blessed)—but to a third group that dies in a state of imperfection. Simply put, this is what Catholicism identifies as the souls in purgatory.

In summary, many Orthodox often take great pains to deny the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, even to the extent of denying their own councils—but the concept of purgation still finds its way into Orthodox theology. This means that the Orthodox may think they have a significantly different view of the afterlife compared to Catholics, but in reality, they hold to a doctrine that is essentially the same as the Catholic position on purgatory. And so the road to Catholic unity may be shorter than the average Orthodox realizes.
source

Creeds are inadequate attempt by man to describe the glory of the GodHead. When God Himself is the subject, there is no finality of understanding, and there is no creed that can fully explain the infinite nature of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

 

[Illuminator]

Let me be more precise. The creeds get their ultimate authority from the Scriptures.


See, this is another area where Rome has changed her teaching. First, a few posts ago you were arguing that purgatory was the fire in 1 cor 3 and now you are saying that it not fire. As to the location it might interest you that St. Robert Bellarmine writing in his Doctrina Christiana, a 16th century catechism from which the Baltimore catechism was based on, gives us the location of Purgatory. The Baltimore catechism is the very catechism I was taught from. Bellarmine is a doctor of the church, a declared saint, and the patron of Catechists yet you are saying he is wrong? Lets se what he has to say:

EXPLANATION OF THE FIFTH ARTICLE. In the fifth article it is said, "He descended to hell, on the third day He rose again from the dead," I desire to know what hell means there? T. Hell is the lowest and deepest place in the whole world, that is, the center. Additionally, in many places Scripture opposes Heaven to hell, as if it were the highest place to the lowest place. Moreover, in that abyss of the earth there are four distinct caverns, or four great receptacles. One of the damned, which is the deepest; thus it is fitting that the proud devils, and the men that follow them, are in the lowest and deepest place that can be found. In the second cavern, which is a little higher, are those souls who receive the punishment of purgatory and they are found even now. In the third, which is still higher than the first two, are the souls of children who die without baptism; these are not tormented by the eternal fire, but only the punishment of loss, i.e. they undergo the loss of the beatific vision. In the fourth, which is higher than the other three, there lived the souls of the Patriarchs, Prophets and other Holy Men that had died before the coming of Christ. Even if these souls had no need of purgation, nevertheless, they could not enter into glory until Christ had unsealed the gates of eternal life by His death. This is why, as long as they were compelled to stay in that place, which is called the limbo of the Fathers, or the bosom of Abraham, which they lived insofar as they were away from punishment, they could rest in joyful quiet waiting for the coming of the Lord with great jubilation.

Doctrina Christiana, Robert Bellarmine, Mediatrix Press Kindle edition 2016.

Here's what doesn't make sense. Purgatory is a place where those with venial sins are directed to in order to expiate their sins and receive the temporal punishment of their sin yet purgatory is not temporal? Second, The late Pope Benedict XVI says its not a temporal and physical location so who is right? Isn't this what the magisterium of the church is for?


I am really not concerned with what the Eastern Orthodox say or do not say.

But you always bring them up.

If i were you I wouldn't either for two reasons. First, the most virulent anti-catholic polemics do not come from some wild eyed KJV only IFB types it comes from the Eastern Orthodox. Second, the EO don't "do" theology or apologetics the same why you and I do. The EO have a completely different set of assumptions and framework that they operate from.

Purgatory is not so much a place but a state being.

 

[Illuminator]

Creeds are inadequate attempt by man to describe the glory of the GodHead. When God Himself is the subject, there is no finality of understanding, and there is no creed that can fully explain the infinite nature of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

Creeds are a statement of faith, nothing can adequately describe the glory of the GodHead. If you reject something as basic as the Nicene Creed, you cannot honestly call yourself a Christian.

​

 

[Patrick1966]

If you reject something as basic as the Nicene Creed, you cannot honestly call yourself a Christian.

So if I'm in Jesus's church but not the Catholic Church I'm not a Christian?

 

[Robert Pate]

Creeds are a statement of faith, nothing can adequately describe the glory of the GodHead. If you reject something as basic as the Nicene Creed, you cannot honestly call yourself a Christian.

View attachment 35519​

Satan believes the Nicene Creed. Is he saved?

 

[Athanasius377]

But you always bring them up.

I have never brought up the EO.

We must stick to the scriptures and not presume anything they do not reveal, and not deny anything they do.

That my friend is a creed. Creeds are useful didactic tools by which to teach the basics of the faith. They are by definition not meant to be exhaustive but rather to lay out parameters in order to delineate between truth and error. They get their ultimate authority from Scripture. There are, in fact creeds in the bible. An example of an Apostolic Creed would be Phillippians 2:6-11

...(Christ Jesus), 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Php 2:5–11). (2016). Crossway Bibles.


Along with Romans 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 are fragments or credal statements. The creed @Illuminator quoted is the Nicene-Constantinoplitan creed from 381. It was derived from the ancient Roman baptismal creed and expanded in order to fight against various heresies that were in ascendancy at the time. That's not to say that one must use that particular creed. Any statement of belief is in fact a creed.

 

[Athanasius377]

So if I'm in Jesus's church but not the Catholic Church I'm not a Christian?

The word catholic is derived from the Greek καθολικός and simply means "universal" or a strict definition, "of the whole". If you were to substitute the word "christian" instead of catholic you would not change the meaning of the text. It was the term the ancient church fathers used to describe the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in the earliest centuries of the church and the council composed the Nicene creed simply adopted the term. It was used as a description over and against the various cults that were largely regional that claimed to be Christian. It does not however refer to the modern Church of Rome which claims to be catholic.

 

[Patrick1966]

The word catholic is derived from the Greek καθολικός and simply means "universal" or a strict definition, "of the whole". If you were to substitute the word "christian" instead of catholic you would not change the meaning of the text. It was the term the ancient church fathers used to describe the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in the earliest centuries of the church and the council composed the Nicene creed simply adopted the term. It was used as a description of various cults that were largely regional that claimed to be Christian. It does not however refer to the Church of Rome which claims to be catholic.

Thank you. I am a member of the body of Jesus's church, but I am not a member of the worldly organization headquartered in Rome known as the Catholic Church.

 

[Hobie]

I have never brought up the EO.


That my friend is a creed. Creeds are useful didactic tools by which to teach the basics of the faith. They are by definition not meant to be exhaustive but rather to lay out parameters in order to delineate between truth and error. They get their ultimate authority from Scripture. There are, in fact creeds in the bible. An example of an Apostolic Creed would be Phillippians 2:6-11

...(Christ Jesus), 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Php 2:5–11). (2016). Crossway Bibles.


Along with Romans 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3 are fragments or credal statements. The creed @Illuminator quoted is the Nicene-Constantinoplitan creed from 381. It was derived from the ancient Roman baptismal creed and expanded in order to fight against various heresies that were in ascendancy at the time. That's not to say that one must use that particular creed. Any statement of belief is in fact a creed.

Yes, but if the creed is not correct or not fully unveiled or has to be replaced or revised, then what. List of Christian creeds - Wikipedia