I don't want to be ridiculed on this one. I need to know how and why we believe in purgatory. I have such a hard fathoming this area and want to know all I can about it. What is supposed to be the real purpose in purgatory and do we all go there before we enter heaven? I know time doesn't exist in eternity as we know it, but how do we know we have time periods there?Just please help me better understand this part of my faith. Nancy <><

-- Nancy R. Cline (NCLINE@CENTURYINTER.NET), August 03, 1999

Answers

Here's my understanding of purgatory: Before we can enter heaven, we need to be purged of our natural attachment to anything that isn't God. Most of us love ourselves, our appetites, our sins, & our material lives instead of, or more than, God.

Very few individuals attain a state of perfect love for God during their lives. Those people are saints, & go straight to heaven. The rest of us... well, we get purged.

-- an rc (hope@this.helps), August 03, 1999.

I liked the book "The Great Divorce" by C.S.Lewis. Lewis, an Anglican, did not use the term Purgatory; but I rather fancy that it was a purgatorial state that he had in mind when he wrote the book. It did provide me with another dimension to my concept of Purgatory.

-- Elsie L (elsie@genitech.com), August 03, 1999.

Purgatory as has been stated is a " cleansing " area for souls. As to time factors we have been told a thousand years a day is all the same to God the Father. In closing Nancy I do not have my reading glasses on but I think I saw Purgatory in the Rand - McNally south of Brazil. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 03, 1999.

Many people do get hung up on the "time" that is attached to Indulgences. It was just a way of saying that this act or prayer had more effect that this other one. The Church has now removed this terminology and simply refers to "Plenery" (complete) and "Partial" indulgences.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), August 05, 1999.

You get hung up on "time","Plenary" and "Partial" . Tell me, since Christ was able to "heal" those with Faith of all physical ailments in an INSTANT, why in the world would we have to "wait" in some place to be "cleansed" of our "sins" - which Jesus ALREADY PAID IN FULL FOR?

I believe your trying to explain something your earthly mind can't comprehend with a earthly concept that is foreign to the Bible (you claim to have canonized). Simply because you can't seem to accept you' (body/ soul) go back to the cold ground from whence you were MADE - to "SLEEP ", as Jesus said.

THOC

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 05, 1999.

I wonder if this would help at all. The Jewish people - our forefathers - saw three levels and sometimes seven levels of Heaven. Could this be referring to final spiritual growth to be in the company of angels and then the Father? +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 05, 1999.

Jean,

Thanks for, I'm assuming positive, comments on the others post's. But mine is not "fire" nor spit. It is what many believe is the Truth, without the additives.

As to the levels of Heaven, my understanding of the "three":

1) the sky = The "heavens" above our heads. Where the birds fly. Where Elijah was taken - then put somewhere else on earth.

2) the thing we call space = The place above our "heaven" (atmosphere). Where the astronauts go. :>)

3) the 'place' where The God rules from = "The Kingdom of Heaven"

AS to the others people say of, I do not know. I heard that some can get 10+ from Biblical reading, but I do not know how they do it.

The references made to "heavens" is stated in the Bible, and many come up with different conclusions as to the number. However, the are never "levels" of "hell" (purgatory) in the Bible, except when Greek or Danta (sp?) and mythology is added, imho. So I see no correlation in making the analogy's.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 05, 1999.

Jamey - Without offending you please I want to say an image that came to my mind when reading you at times is of hardwood floor all shiny and well kept but no depth. There is a whole dimension of thought you seem to not be aware of. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 06, 1999.

Why?

And, I'm no where close to being "shiny." The "hardness" I've tried to put behind me. I do believe that matters of Faith are a lot more simple than Catholic portray them too be though.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 06, 1999.

Respectfully Jean,

Further, while driving to work this morning, If you want to make architectural analogies as to "mind", please do a little research.

A residential "hardwood" floor is 'simple.' However, If you look at a commercial hardwood floor (ie: basket ball court, bowling lane, etc) you'll find there's a lot more too it.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 06, 1999.

Jamey, Your thinking that Purgatory is a degree of hell, brought to mind a conversation I had recently with a priest. I had said, if you are justified by the Cross of Christ why do you go to a degree of hell before heaven. He said that purgatory is not a degree of hell. I said, but it is the absense of God (hell)? I think he thought that purgatory was a degree of heaven. He looked forward to going there because of the final outcome. You are saved, but not ready to see God so it can't be hell. Only those not saved go to hell. Personally, I am not sure about this purgatory stuff. I do think that in THIS life we experience trials and tribulations that strengthen our faith and cause us to be more christlike. It is a loving discipline from the Father. He is with us and never gives us more than we can bear. Purgatory on the otherhand, is an absense from God until we are good enough to be with Him. Flesh cannot see the glory of God, (since the fall that is.) When a person dies the corrupted flesh dies. It does not see God. But the spiritual nature justified and sanctified by Christ goes to be with Him. On the last day ,the saints (all believers) will be reunited with an immortal, glorified body that is sinless. We are then fully liberated from death and decay. We can fully participate in our bodies full communion with God.

-- pamela (rosylace@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Jamey,

One more thought! The reason Jesus died and was forsaken ( separated from the presence of God) was to take our place so we would never be forsaken and apart from God. If purgatory is the absense of God, it is not a place where believers go.

-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

I asked a question that I thought would help me on my faith journey. Instead I got responses that sound like personal vendettas or worse yet a bit pompous. Christian Catholic or Christians practicing another faith, we are still a part of the Body of Christ and what happened here was totally uncalled for. Are you people the rescuers for the drowning souls - if you are - please change your attitudes - and be the help we drowning ones need

-- Nancy R. Cline (NCLINE@CENTURYINTER.NET), August 06, 1999.

Sorry Nancy - I do not think the arguments that often erupt on this site because of personal vendettas or self-righteousness. If it wasn't for Jamey then this site would be quite dull. Somewhere between his position and the "orthodox" position lies what might be called the truth: that thing which we are all supposed to be looking for. I have learnt an awful lot from the arguments on this site; think of it as a crucible where the truth is gradually drawn out through white-hot discussion. I am just grateful that we can have this dialogue - I've obviously been reading too much Milton!

There isn't an easy answer to your question. Some of the Catholics here have just told you what purgatory means to them, and no doubt someone will come along and give you an "official" definition. Others like Jamey(and myself) view the whole thing as a fabrication by those who cannot accept that *nothing* might happen between the time of one's death and the time of one's judgement. That's my view anyway - I don't really know what Jamey thinks(his level of theology is several light years ahead of mine).

There will be disagreements. Someone above thinks "The Great Divorce" has something to do with Purgatory, whereas I don't(the point being that this life is "Purgatory" and we make up our minds *here* about whether we want to hold onto to earthly desires, or not). What matters is that the discourse is polite, and this particular thread has been quite polite... you should read some of the others!

As for drowning souls... well I don't know. I speak from the position of someone who could quite happily accept Christianity at one point, but then I got an education: Ignorance *was* bliss. Its curious really... we are told that we should accept the Kingdom of God like children, and then told that we should put away childish things(Corinthians). We can't grow-up *and* retain our childish innocence (unfortunately). I don't know, rescuing a drowning soul is easy, but teaching it how to swim is something different... does that make sense?

Every question has a simple and a complicated answer. I suppose the ultimate question is "What answer do you want?"

Regards

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), August 06, 1999.

May I please begin by thanking the ladies for the down to earth input. Please let us know when either of you are on tour as both have a very solid grasp on Christianity.

Secondly as to Jamey being one who does not allow this site to be dull is a sad statement his JW upbringing is to get his foot in the and then begin to irritate ad infinitum. This is his psychology plan and simple for as JW he believes Catholics will not enter heaven as the chosen 144,000.

For those who are Catholic on this site as myself we have been given the true faith as established by Jesus Christ who through Peter The Apostle " The Rock " stated outright " This Church will prevail against the gates of Hell! " Never forget that as Catholics for we are the continued chosen and of a priestly people.

Our gifts are charity love and hope the greatest of these is LOVE. For I give you a new commandmemt " to love one another as I have loved you." That was from the big Kahuna Himself the founder in the form of man. He was God The Father in THE FOR OF MAN who when having left this earth sent the Paraclete to help us.

The devistation of The Reformation is still with us but lo and behold the Church the Faith the Sacraments are still with us. WE are a blessed people who through the new commandment are obligated to sow that seed.

The parable of the sower is so true even to-day for think of those who through developed ignorance yes ignorance believe in their hearts they are correct.

Mormons Jehovah Witness Moonies etc: are fanatical cults plain and simple. Their arguments are circular and self-consuming. We as Catholics know better and as Catholics we offer the open hand of Christ to anyone who is wanting the gentle kiss of peace given us at every mass celebration by an ordained priest who may or may not be a sinner like us all.

Christ never forced anyone to accept Him for He always offered with an open hand to be held in trust. We must do the same as a priestly people which brings me again to the ladies for they in their maternal hearts do not want to see closed fists and anger for it is not Christ like.

Love is patient love is kind love all what we have been told it is and we all struggle through our needs and fears to accept and give.

This Franciscan asks all of you to be thankful and gratefull for the simple love Christ has offered to us as His brothers and sisters. To thank our Holy Mother for bringing Him into this world and Joseph for protecting Him. This is Catholic.

Yes think as child in a clean open eyed manner and act as responsible adults who in turn look after the other little ones regardless of their chronological age. The inner portion of our hearts is what The Father sent Christ to touch not the intellectual proud and profane creature who turned away from Him.

Shall stop here and hope His love truly touches that inner heart and turns it from stone to flesh.

Peace And Well Being A Little Brother In Christ

Jean Bouchard

-- jean bouchardRC (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 07, 1999.

Dear Jean,

I think Jamey's presence on this site prevents it from being dull because it prevents it from being complacent. I think having an alternative voice(however misguided you regard it to be) is healthy. Ok.. so all the non-Catholics have started a few blazing arguments, but I think things are beginning to settle down.

I've learnt a lot from these arguments though; the more I learn about the various conflicts within the Church the easier it is for me to formulate my own opinions which I am comfortable with. Now before everyone accuses me of picking and choosing, please consider this:

I wish I had a copy of the preface to Milton's "De Doctrina Christiana" to hand but let me paraphrase... there is no point in believing something that you do not understand or feel uncomfortable with. At the end of his preface to a very personal(and heretical) idea of Christianity Milton says that you mustn't accept *anything* of what he says unless you feel comfortable with it. There is much in the faith of both Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics that I am not comfortable with - this isn't a fickle feeling, but a profound sense of discomfort; some of these things offend my spiritual instincts...

I will only be happy(and unhappy Christian is no use to anyone) when I feel comfortable with whatever I believe in - If this means not being able to call myself a Christian then so be it.

David Palm wrote a post entitled "Why do I believe in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church"(or something similar") - One day I might write one entitled "Why I don't respect the authority of any Church", but only if people want me to. I haven't become cynical; I am just afraid of believing the wrong thing. And besides, a bit of hopelessly amateur theology might give the hard shiny wooden floors something to laugh at. I might actually get them to agree on something, even if it the fact that I don't know what I am talking about!

Catholics can beg their "misguided" brothers and sisters to return to the fold, but they are simply not going to. The Reformation was devastating but it something the RCC brought upon itself by becoming corrupt and facist. Catholicism is still referred to as the "White Man's Islam": a theocratic ultra-conservative religion that represents a threat to civil and spiritual liberty. I don't believe this of course, but I would have believed it 400 years ago(I'm tempted to believe it when the RCC[and others] threaten to undo 10 years of progress by the WHO on population control, but never mind). It is all very well for you to offer an open hand in an age where politics and religion have become mostly divorced, but what you are doing like asking a republican to accept a monarch. Monarchy/Aristocracy was one of the first things that the Founding Fathers abolished when they established your country. You could never ask a protestant to submit to the authority of the Pope, just as you could never expect the people of the United States of America to accept a monarch. The Papacy may be theologically sound, but it is politically unacceptable... and anyway... wasn't this "Rock" the same person who denied Christ three times?(I don't mean to be facetious, but I can't ignore these things)

I don't mean to attack you Jean, but please try to understand why a lot of people are confused, and don't know who to trust. I agree with you that probably the most important piece of Christian scripture is that passage from Corinthians: "Without Love, I am nothing" (I paraphrase) I am very aware of my own lack of love at times, and it scares me(as it should), but this is why I can no longer trust churches...

Churches tell me to condemn Muslims, Budhists, Hindus... even when their devotion to their respective faiths puts that of many Western materialized Christians to shame.

Churches tell me to condemn homosexuals... even when many of them are my friends, and show a solidarity and love for each other with puts many adulterating, fornicating, sodomising, child-abusing heterosexuals to shame.

Churches tell me that people shouldn't get divorced... even when their miserable unhappy marriages represent an insult to the state of sacred harmony envisaged by God.

Churches tell me that God is male... which has been responsible for centuries of seeing women not as women, but as unmen, unmale, and therefore unworthy - just as the Reformation smashed the monopoly of the Catholic church on truth, Femininism destroyed the association of truth with male. It was violent; it has bred uncertainty and confusion, but it had to happen and it was a good thing. Ok.. so we all have to work toward a common goal, but that will not be found in anywhere in the past.

The post-Reformation/post-Feminist world is a very frightening place, but I would rather embrace that than turn the clock back 2'000 years (which is impossible). I guess I just have to be vigilant, and I haven't got time to finish this... here goes

Regards

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.

Matthew,

I really liked your previous post. You are not alone in your feelings. It reminds me of a verse that i was comptemplating earlier today.

Revelations 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who "walketh in the midst" of the seven golden candlesticks;

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), August 07, 1999.

"Churches tell me to condemn Muslims, Budhists, Hindus . ....Churches tell me to condemn homosexuals..... Churches tell me that God is male... "

Really? That's interesting. I have to wonder what churches you're referring to. I'm Catholic & my church has never told me any such thing.

I was never taught to condemn anyone. Only God condemns; or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people condemn themselves, by choosing to live sinful lives.

Preaching against sin is part of spreading the Gospel. Telling someone that he is sinning, & thereby risks an eternity of separation from God unless he ceases to sin, is no more "condemning" than telling a chain-smoker that he risks a horrible slow painful death by emphasema or lung cancer unless he gives up his smoking habit. In fact, it's an act of charity that we are obliged to perform.

As for "people shouldn't get divorced..." Well, my common sense tells me that. Probably most people shouldn't marry at all, but that's a different discussion.

-- tabbycat (not@this.address), August 07, 1999.

Pamela,

A trinity issue: Jesus according to the trinity, immoratal soul could not have been separated from God if He was God and the soul doesn't die??????????????

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 08, 1999.

Jean,

As I've told David Palm, I thank you for the association but I am not a Jehovah's Witness - I don't live up to what I consider to be a higher standard than most other "Christians."

Further, as I said of you architectural analolgies, you should do a little more research before making assumptions. I also was not "raised" in the Witness's. I have only been affliated with them for about a year.

I've said here before, I became "involved" with the Jehovah Witness's for the wrong reason. That reason was because my brother became invovled with them and thought I was about to loose a close "friend" because of all the bad things I had heard about them.

I know now most are rumers that were started by those (religiuos organozations) who probably had something to loose.

However, I have not believed in the trinity, hell fire, eternal torture, etc for about 15 years. Simply put, because it doesn't fit with a 'sane' or loving Father. But does fit with a 'scizo'/sadistic one.

If your want to keep throwing rocks, go ahead. Compare me to a floor. But, 'my' words are also in 'your' Bible. My words are aimed at 'you' (teachings of the Catholics) to see if they hold up. Not to individuals, just what they consider to understand according to what they have been taught. I don't believe they do. Everyone can make up your own mind. For unlike many catholic teachings, I do not condemn 'you' to "hell" if you don't believe me. At this point in my path, I don't NOT belong to one of your man-made religions. My cathedral is the earth and it's ceiling is the sky.

So, before you go making statements about my personal life, please check your facts first.

Jamey

P.S. read Kindegarden Chats - Louis Sullivan; or Truth Against the World - Frank Llyod Wright, if want my background in architecture or feel a need to keep using architectural analogies.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 08, 1999.

Jamey - I shall apologise for what I see as continued confusion. Get away from the cult religion(s) and go to an established one who offer a blueprint you feel comfortable with. End of issue for this man. God Bless.+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 08, 1999.

That's just a "nice" way of saying the same thing David said "if you don't believe the Catholics, then leave."

As, you stated in another thread, Jesus said "come follow Me." The Bible also states "obtain 'accurate' knowledge." I still have seen no reason to believe 'yours' you hold so dearly too. Simply because I see no reason to believe your main theories when compared with the Bible itself.

David P stated in another thread about "you should now them by their fruits of the Spirit." IT also says you will know My congregation by their LOVE for one another. I don't believe many of 'your' members have shown 'brotherly love' for one another.

You put "peace" at the bottom of your statements , but yet began by making statements comparing someone to a 'floor.' Whom, you have no idea of. That's like Regan preaching 'peace' by preparing for war, imho. But, maybe is justified to have a M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) in 'your' church. However, I don't believe all Catholics believe this.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 09, 1999.

Jamey, What was the Trinity comment about?

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

Dear Nancy, As to your purgatory question-------I think when we die, we all go to the same "place" at first. It is there that we do our life review and find out how much we screwed up. This place is a very good place, but it isn't heaven. People, who at this point, are still rejecting God, go to hell. Since hell is the abscence of God, people who are going to hell have to know a little bit about heaven or hell wouldn't be a punishment. You can't miss what you've never known. People like Mother Teresa, are welcomed into heaven. And the rest of us, we just stay put until we've figured out what we've done wrong and corrected our thinking and are sorry for what we have done. I don't think purgatory is a bad place, but sort of like a holding cell, in which wwe have to stay until we get our thinking straight. I also don't think we have to stay there for many sins that we've committed because we know about those ones and most people are sorry for them. I think we have to stay there for sins mostly of ommission, ones we're not even aware of fully. For instance- One morning I'm in a bad mood and my mood affects my child who goes to school and disrupts the whole class and the teacher gets mad and yells at all of them then she goes home and yells at her husband who gets in a bad mood because he doesn't know why is wife is mad and when his mother calls on the phone he is rude to her and when she gets off the phone with him she yells at the nurse in the nursing home where she lives and then the nurse-(you get the idea?) Every one of our actions affects the other people around us and yet we give that very little thought. It is a ripple effect and the person who starts the ripple has to be somewhat accountable. So for every ripple I've started, I'll be in purgatory a long time. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), August 27, 1999.

The Peace of the Lord. The main body of Christian have always believe in the existence of a place between Heaven and hell where soul go to be punish for lesser sins and to repay the debt of temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven by God but still be punished . If we don't go through pain that is a fire that purify our souls we can't go to heaven. When we sin we break our relation with God . We are wounding the body of Christ. A wound take time to heal. A wound can be made it in seconds but take days to heal. If we do the will of God this would not be necesarry. But we heritage the sin of desodedient(original sin). One way or other we sin. But with Penance(fast) we can console our Lord and not go to Pulgatory. Like many saints did. All can be Holies. Because no matter how much talent He gave to another person. What count is how many talents He gave to ourselve individualy. Because he don't go to judge us with the mesure of somebody else. With Penance we do what we would do in Purgatory. So doing Penance would made us of free of Purgatory. In the Bible do no appear the word Pulgatory but of course said about a place where lesser sins are purged away and the soul is save "yet so as fire" is mentiones ( 1 Cor. 3 : 15 ) Also the Bible distinguished between those who enter Heaven straightaway, calling them: "the church of the first born" (Heb.12:23) and those who enter after having undergone a purgation, calling them: the spirit of the just made perfect." In the gospel of Matt. 5:23 Jesus says: "Amen I say to thee thou shalt not go out firm thence till you repay the last farthing." And in Matt. 12:36 He says: " Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment". And in 2 Mach. 12:46 " It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loose from sins" Example: Taking our own court of justice.

For mayor crime a person is execute or sentenced to life in prison. (Hell) For minor crimes a person is sentenced to temporary prison and rehabilitation (Purgatory). For no crime at all a person is rewarded with the blessing of free citizenship (Heaven) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First: Ask god for the grace to avoid Pulgatory. Second: Penance (Fast) Third: So as more we go to Confession, Mass, Comunion we can avoid Purgatory. Fourth: Avoid sin deliberately and have strong resolution never do it again. Fith: Do not avoid suffering. Accept suffering with calm. Sixth: Resignation to any kind of death. Seventh: Receive the Sacrament of Auxiliary of the Sicness. That would prepare us to the death.

-- Eva Maria (Aveiram@BellSouth.net), September 25, 1999.

Eva - A very fine posting indeed. At time this Catholic is distrubed at nights thinking of the pain of Purgatory. As someone pointed out in the forum somewhere we carve our own cross. +peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 25, 1999.

Dear Nancy R. Cline,

It also a Doctrine in the Catholic Church that we must obliged to believe the existence of purgatory. Purgatory is the place or state that souls, who are in the state of grace but is guilty of venial sin, must go there to cleanse and to purify their soul (by means of fire) before entering the kingdom of heaven.

Actually Jesus Christ speaks about the existence of purgatory in the Bible. "...you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." (Matthew 5:25-26) "Whoever speaks the word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven, whoever speaks the word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him EITHER IN THIS WORLD OR IN THE WORLD TO COME." (Matthew 12:32)

GOD BLESS YOU!!!!

AVE MARIA

In Christ & Mary,

Sean Xavier Alquilita

-- Sean Xavier Alquilita (sean_xavier_alquilita@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

Greetings Nancy: On your question of purgatory I would refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraphs 1030-1032. (If you don't own a copy, I suggest you buy one. It contains many answers to questions pertaining to our Catholic faith.) In the CCC, reference is made to sacred scripture "therefore (Judas Maccabeus) made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." The Church encourages all of us to pray for the dead. The dead who require prayers must be, by process of elimination, those in "purgatory". Souls in heaven do not require prayer, as they are saved and in the presence of God. Souls in hell do not require prayer as they are eternally damned. In this life we are all called to holiness. Our mission in this life is healing and salvation, nothing more. This life is all about how we will spend our next life. "Who created us? God created us. Why did God create us? God created us to love and serve Him in this world and to be with Him in the next." These are simple words taken from my childhood catechism class. God is pure goodness. You see, the one thing our loving God cannot put up with or be in the presence of, is sin. He abhors it. Once Adam and Eve fell from grace, by committing a sin, they had to leave the presence of God. They and their descendants have been striving to return to the Master ever since. This world is about purifying ourselves, molding ourselves to the image and likeness of Christ so that, we may one day enjoy His eternal presence. However, as this world has many temptations, sometimes we stray from our mission and find ourselves, as Adam and Eve did, in sin for which a price must be paid. The punishment for sins forgiven and for venial sins unforgiven, can, at times, be paid here through suffering and penance, or, if not, must be paid in our next life so that, we are purified and sanctified sufficiently to be allowed into the presence of God. This final place where we are purified and made into perfect images of our Creator prior to admission into His presence is called Purgatory. Next, you might want to check our the Church's stances on Indulgences. But be careful, the idea of indulgences is grossly misunderstood and people can be given the wrong impressions about how they work.

God Bless Ed

-- Ed Lauzon Sr. (grader@accglobal.net), April 01, 2000.

Although I could go into many details regarding the real teachings of the Church on Pugatory, and none of the rationale that I see in this thread is even close; I just wish to remind all of us of the words of St John the Baptist. He was speaking to his followers, who had considered him to be the Messiah of the Promise.

''I have baptised you with water,'' he said. ''But He who is to come shall baptise you with fire and the Holy Spirit.'' This ''fire'' is the fire of Purgatory, by analogy. Can one or two of you check it out, and see if I'm close? THANKS!

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 08, 2000.

[Posted by J. F. Gecik, 4/9/2000 a.m.]

Here is the passage in question, Eugene.

Matthew 3:11: [St. John the Baptizer said:] "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
12: His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." [RSV]

As Catholics, we are permitted to engage in private interpretation of scripture [actually, it is unavoidable], but it must be a "guided" interpretation. Many passages of scripture can be understood in various "senses." Only a small number of passages have been strictly defined as having just one meaning that Catholics must believe. For many passages, we would do well to consider helpful, even authoritative, the interpretations given by the Fathers of the Church during the first millenia, since they are most likely to reflect the understanding of the earliest Christians. For most passages, we must simply avoid interpreting them in unreasonable ways or in ways that would contradict our Catechism.

Eugene, you have proposed the interpretation of "fire" in Matthew 3:11 as "Purgatory."
So the first question to ask is if this is a reasonable interpretation. It does not seem contrary to reason. John speaks of "fire" in the very next verse -- apparently with reference to hell [since the saved in Purgatory are not "chaff"], but in verse 11, "fire" seems not to mean hell, since Jesus does not "baptize" us with "hell."
The next question to ask is whether the Catechism rules out "fire" in verse 11 as referring to Purgatory. It does not.
Now, do we have any comments on verse 11 from the Fathers? I found a few, though I cannot give you the specific sources. There is not a unanimity of interpretation of the word "fire."
St. John Chrysostom judges that, "by fire, [St. John the Baptizer] signifies the strength of grace which cannot be overcome."
The Father known as "Pseudo-Chrysostom" offers that the fire can represent the overcoming of trials and tribulations of carnal temptation. "The Spirit drives away lust, and suffers it not to prevail, and the fire burns up its very roots."

St. Jerome, who made the famous Latin Vulgate translation from the original languages around A.D. 400, wrote this:
"We may understand Jesus to be speaking of the Holy Spirit Himself as fire, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, when there sat, as it were, tongues of fire on those present; and thus the word of the Lord was fulfilled who said, 'I am come to send fire on the earth, I will that it burn [Luke 12:49].' ... Or, we may understand Jesus to be saying that we are baptized now with the Spirit, but hereafter with fire; as the Apostle Paul speaks, 'Fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [1 Cor 3:13]'"

As I'm sure you know, Eugene, that passage from 1 Corinthians is often understood (e.g., by Pope St. Gregory the Great) as referring to Purgatory.

So, it seems that yours is a permissible interpretation of Matthew 3:11, though not the only one.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 09, 2000.

John, did you ever read the accounts of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich? The Church held them in very high regard in the 19th century, never of course, pronouncing on their veracity.

I am convinced of the genuine nature of these visions which she related to a very renowned German writer and poet, Clemens Brentano. He left his worldly career in order to become her amenuensis.

In a number of these accounts, she had ecstatic visions of the souls in Purgatory. Not only that; she had a vision of the descent into Hell itself, by Our Lord; as it maintains in the Creed, ''He descended into Hell, and on the 3rd day He arose. . .'' These are striking and original in their detail and scope.

About 80 years after her death, this stigmatized Augustinian nun, a great model of the immolated soul (for love of Our Savior) was exhumed and found inviolate. In my own lowly opinion, the cause for her cannonization would have advanced quickly enough; if it hadn't been for the country of her birth, Germany. Very shortly after her death, two World Wars came about through her country's fault. This, I think, made her ''cause'' politically incorrect for the times.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 10, 2000.

Hello, Eugene.
I have heard of Blessed Anne and seen the illustrated cover of a book containing her words, but I have never read them.

You mentioned that she stated that she had a vision of Christ's "descent into Hell." Are you aware that, as Catholics, we do not believe that Jesus descended into what is today called "the hell of the damned?"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 11, 2000.

There it is: The can of worms;

You may show me here, (in short installments, I hope) when and in what form the Catholic Church is disputing all the things Christ had to say on this subject. Afterwards, if I have a leg to stand on, I'll respond. Lol!

Then, if I am able I can tell you something about Anne Catherine Emmmerich; and the views of learned Churchmen on the way we are to understand her visions. It is less controversial than one might imagine.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 11, 2000.

Hi, Eugene.
I'm sorry, but I am terribly confused by your words. I want to reply to you, and I promise that I will, but before I do, can you please tell me what you mean by your opening words, speaking a little more straightforwardly? At one point, it almost seems as though you are on the verge of calling me a heretic. At another point, it almost seems as though you think that the Church is capable of teaching error. As a committed Catholic, you know that the Church could not possibly "disput[e anything] Christ had to say on [any] subject."

As you can see, you have me a bit shook up! I never had a plan to do anything except to quote the Catechism on this subject (Christ's descent into "hell"). There is nothing mysterious or troubling about what I wish to tell you.

Here are your words, which I would ask you to re-phrase ... "There it is: The can of worms; You may show me here, (in short installments, I hope) when and in what form the Catholic Church is disputing all the things Christ had to say on this subject."

Muchas gracias.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 11, 2000.

Dear John,
Why am I so convoluted in my approach? I'm stupid. Look; in the first place, no matter what a visionary like Emmerich says, a faithful Catholic is required to subject it to the scrutiny of the Church first. I always look at the beginning of any work on faith/morals for the Imprimatur of the Bishop of that district.

In the case of Emmerich, no disposition by holy mother Church has banned her accounts. It does not lend them ecclesiatical authority either. It merely maintains neutrally that there is nothing about them dangerous to the reader's faith or morals.

I want to skip to the part about Hell. Because of the layman's possible susceptibility to excess, and maybe as a safeguard against scandal, our Cathecism might rationalise the Creed's reference to Hell-- by the universally accepted caveat of Limbo, where the Lord may have gone and thereafter arisen from the dead.

But the Apostle's Creed and even the Nicene say, ''He descended into Hell /

Anne Catherine Emmerich says she SAW Jesus, after his death on Calvary, descend in spirit straight DOWN, into the earth (that's right) and reach some part of that underworld an actual GATE / which He unlocked and passed through, into Hell. Her description of this place is spine-chilling. The occupants are in a perpetual state of distress and screams. The darkness is unrelieved, and cacophony is unrelenting. But when Christ entered its midst, a dreadful silence fell upon it all. I should not continue. Anyone interested in this can find the book.

For the purpose of teaching, our holy mother Church goes to the greatest extremes NOT to send negative messages to the faithful. That may be the best course; because back-tracking to cover for a past mis- interpretation would indeed cause scandal. Maybe then a sugar-coated version of Hell is our present state of progess. No one has even the slightest obligation to believe what a stigmatized, saintly and weak woman claims to have seen in visions. But, I am not a gullible or unthinking person. I've read the books, and they have tremendous impact on a believing Christian. Nevertheless, they are not inspired, the Church suggests caution with all the like. Sorry if I rattled you; that was not my intention at all. --Gene

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 11, 2000.

Hello, Eugene,
Please do not misunderstand. I have not said (and will not say) a single negative word about Blessed Anne. Knowing almost nothing about her and her work, I am not competent to have an opinion. I am favorably inclined toward her, though, as I have read only good things about her. You have been defending her statements about her visions of Christ, hell, etc., but I have not been centering on that subject at all. Instead, I have been a bit concerned about something in your own language. And your latest message has me even more concerned than before.

You wrote, "Because of the layman's possible susceptibility to excess, and maybe as a safeguard against scandal, our Cathecism might rationalise the Creed's reference to Hell -- by the universally accepted caveat of Limbo, where the Lord may have gone and thereafter arisen from the dead. But the Apostle's Creed and even the Nicene say, 'He descended into Hell.' ... For the purpose of teaching, our holy mother Church goes to the greatest extremes NOT to send negative messages to the faithful. That may be the best course; because back-tracking to cover for a past misinterpretation would indeed cause scandal. Maybe then a sugar-coated version of Hell is our present state of progess."

Here goes, amigo. I have to be tough on you. I believe that it is improper for us to speak of the world's bishops (including the pope) having "rationalize[d] the Creed's reference to Hell." That seems to be too strong language, which the Magisterium should not receive from a layman. And I repeat the same evaluation with respect to your reference to "a sugar-coated version of Hell." I would not recommend that you not go to stand before God some day and answer for having criticized 3,500 bishops' and one pope's teaching about hell. {_8^D)

But besides your choice of critical language, it is equally serious that you are factually mistaken. Because the Bible teaches it, the Church has always taught that Christ "descended" to "sheol" -- the nether world, the abode of the dead -- and specifically to that part known as "Abraham's bosom" or the "limbo of the fathers," to reveal the wondrous redemption to the non-damned souls of prior ages. He would not have gone -- uselessly -- to the hell of the damned, that "region" of Sheol from which no one could possibly emerge and where no soul deserved a visit from the glorious body of God Himself.

You have been laboring under a common misconception with regard to the wording of the Apostles' Creed ("descended into hell"). [You were mistaken about the Nicene Creed, which does not mention this.] The Apostles' Creed was formerly in Greek and was translated into English some centuries ago. At that time, the Greek word [I think that it was "hades," the ancient equivalent of Hebrew "sheol"] was rendered as "hell," which, as a theological term, did not have just the single everyday-language meaning that it has for us today! Occasionally we hear today a modern translation of the Apostles' Creed, in which the phrase is more understandably rendered as "descended to the dead." Poor parish priests would like to have a nickel for every time they have had to explain to their people that Jesus did not descend into the flames (perhaps to torment the damned Gomorrhans?).

Please take a gander at the following, which comes not from Vatican II (1960s) nor from the Catechism (1990s), but from the 1910s (old Catholic Encyclopedia), when (I assure you) no one was sugar-coating or rationalizing of anything! Those were days of tough talk. (I added emphasis and bracketed comments.)

"Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:
1. hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
2. the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), [abode of] those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin ... [i.e., according to the speculation of certain theologians (almost all now deceased), never a formal teaching of the Church];
3. the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
4. purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven."

"Whatever name may be used in [pre-Christian] Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is that their condition is one of happiness, that it is temporary, and that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established. ... In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the 'limbus patrum' [limbo of the Fathers]. In Matt. 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet 'with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven,' and in Matt. 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man it is called 'Abraham's bosom' (Luke 16:22) and in Christ's words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name 'paradise' is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Eph. 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ 'also descended into the lower parts of the earth,' and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that 'being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,' Christ went and 'preached to those souls that were in prison ...' (I Pet 3:18-20).

Well, I have bored you and gored you much too much, my friend.
Let us be at peace.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 12, 2000.

--O-o-f! Oh, --I needed that! Haha. I have to go back and reread it all. Thanks, John.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 12, 2000.

I am a little confused. John in another thread in Spanish you answered that Heaven and Hell are(I quote "estados" sobrenaturales y no "lugares" como en la Tierra) supernatural states and not places like on Earth. If Heaven and Hell are not "lugares" then the same can be said of Purgatory (souls have no dimensions and therefore don't need places with terrestrial dimensions). In that case it seems to me that to talk about descending and ascending has no meaning, and since they are already in eternity we can not speak of time either. I think that may be things have to be understood in another way. Wainting to hear your clarifing answers. Thanks.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.

I think that the word LIMBO does not appear in Sacred Scripture. Is there a definition of the Magisterium on Limbo? If not where did we get the word and the idea?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.

Thanks for your questions, Enrique.
On the other thread, I was trying to express my understanding of what the pope said not long ago. As far as we know, there are only souls (not bodies) now in hell and Purgatory -- so those "states" would not need "space." What will happen after the resurrection of the body, I cannot speculate. Perhaps glorified, resurrected bodies, such as Christ's and Mary's (and later ours?), need no "space," as Jesus said that the resurrected "are like angels in heaven" [Mark 12:25]. I noticed that the (non-magisterial, 90-year-old) Encyclopedia uses the term "place" (rather than "state") to refer to Heaven, hell, purgatory, and the two limbos.

I agree with your judgment that the souls in Heaven, hell, and Purgatory have left our "time" and are in eternity. Our present habit of speaking of "descending" and "ascending" is only figurative language, derived from the practice of pre-Christian Judaism. If you look at my message to Eugene, you will notice that I put the word "descended" in quotation marks, to show that I believe that the Church does not mean the word literally.

(The following is what I understand from various things I have read. I cannot claim that it comes from the Magisterium.) Jews in the time of Jesus believed that when the body was buried, the spirit separated from it and penetrated to "sheol" -- somewhere deep underground -- a dark place of shadows and inactivity. This "nether world" to which Christ "descended" was believed to have separate abodes for the just and the damned. Towards the end of the pre-Christian period, there began to be hope of a resurrection of the body (as believed by the Pharisees, but not the Sadduccees).

Finally, Enrique, you asked about "limbo." Perhaps you noticed that the Encyclopedia entry refers to two limbos.
1. As I noted in brackets last time, the "limbo of infants" came from theological speculation many centuries ago, and it has lasted down to our time -- though seems almost to have died out. Theologians believing in the absolute necessity of one of the forms of Baptism (water, blood, or desire), believed that none of these was received by certain babies (e.g., miscarried or stillborn). They believed that these children, being innocent of personal sin, should not be consigned to the punishment of hell, but they believed that their souls would have to go to a separate place of perfect and eternal "natural bliss" -- short of heaven. This they called "limbo of infants." The word "limbus" is Latin for "border," a reference to the infants' abode being on the border between heaven and hell. I believe that Pope John Paul II has made clear his doubt that the "limbo of infants" exists. But I don't think that we will know for sure until the end of the world (if ever).
2. The second limbo, the limbo of the fathers, refers to the abode of the just (but unredeemed) pre-Christians in "sheol," who were visited and preached to by Jesus between His Crucifixion and Resurrection. Apparently, they were seen as being on a "border" between Earth and Heaven.

An interesting and often forgotten passage to consider, in conjunction with all this, is from Matthew 27, referring to the moment of Jesus's death: "51: And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52: the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53: and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Does this refer to the "fathers" who had been in sheol/limbo? Did they then "ascend" to heaven, accompanying Jesus? I hope so, but we don't know. [By the way, the very existence of a state/place of abode for souls who were visited by Jesus -- i.e., neither heaven nor hell -- supports the reasonableness of our firm belief in a present third "state" known as purgatory -- neither heaven nor hell.]

Please follow up, if I have not fully answered your questions -- though I don't know if I can think of anything to add to this.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 12, 2000.

John: I thank you very much for your answer. I seem to have a clearer idea about these things. As I was reading your post a thought occurred to me: The faith of the parents, in the case of unborn infants, could not be a means for salvation?. I heard a priest some time ago mention that St. Thomas Aquinas even spoke about an angel sent by God in the instant of death to "evangelize" people that had not been baptized. There are so many angles to this question.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Consider the opposite case: an unborn baby from atheist or lukewarm parents. Is it fair (God FAIR?) to allow the blameless baby to go the way of his bad parents? All is a mystery to us. God's Will be done, and let's pray for the unfortunate.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 13, 2000.

Thanks, E. & E., for your further notes.

Enrique, I have heard the first idea you raise [faith of parents ... as a means for salvation], but I have never felt comfortable with that, because there is no foundation for it in the Church's teaching. I think that it reminds me too much of the Mormon practice of doing genealogical work so that they can get themselves baptized over and over and over to gain the salvation of dead people.

I am much more attracted to your second thought -- "an angel sent by God in the instant of death to 'evangelize' people that had not been baptized." I believe that the pope (as reflected in the Catechism) holds out hope that aborted babies may be in heaven [or "with God," as I think he puts it] because the Bible tells us that God desires the salvation of all men. If He desires this, it seems logical to assume that He can provide some means, even extraordinary means [the angel?], by which this may be accomplished. He gives us Sacraments as means by which to receive grace, but He does not bind Himself to give grace only through those means. He is all-powerful, so we may believe that He can even communicate with a one-celled human embryo, offering salvation to him/her at the point of death.

Eugene, you asked, "Is it fair ... to allow the blameless baby to go the way of his bad parents?" What is "not fair" is whatever is unjust, and God cannot be unjust. One priest always used to remind people (who clucked their tongues about the poor and badly raised) that those people are incredibly privileged to have a chance to live in this world and especially to have a chance for eternity in heaven. He said that all who start off badly can turn their lives around -- and to think otherwise is a sin of despair and a lack of belief in free will. He said that we must remember that God owes us nothing and that whatever He decides to do, even permitting a person's early death, is automatically "fair," because He can do no wrong.

You are so right ... "God's Will be done, and let's pray for the unfortunate."
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 13, 2000.

Boy, this is getting very interesting. John: from your posts I have come to three conclusions:

A) God wants all men to be saved.

B) No one without personal sin can be sent to hell. Infants have no such sin.

C) No one without personal sin can be sent to purgatory. Infants ...

D) Pope John P II doubts that the limbo on infants exists

No hell, no purgatory, no limbo, there is only one place to go: HEAVEN.

Angel or no Angel, I am confident that the love and mercy of God,which are infinite, can find a way so that no infant goes anywhere but Heaven.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Ten cuidado, Enrique. Be cautious
We must be "hopeful," but not overly assuming.
The Cathechism reflects the Pope's hopeful [but not definitive] statement on this subject:
"1261. As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[Mk 10 14 ; cf. 1 Tim 2:4 .] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

One problem with going too far in making assumptions is this ... If we were to begin teaching that heaven is automatic for all unbaptized children under the age of reason, evil people (or misguided decent people) will take that as a warrant to kill these children (especially through abortion and abortion-causing contraceptives).

So the Church urges that children be baptized on the earliest possible date. You have heard of "believer's baptism" (baptism, by certain separated brethren, of only those old enough to express their faith) and you have heard of non-Catholic "re-baptism" of fallen-away Catholics who were baptized as infants? Well, a very early Church controversy was not whether or not people should be baptized as infants, but whether infants should be baptized at one day old or one week old! They should become part of God's family as soon as possible, it was decided, and they should be ready to enter Heaven, in case they may encounter a very early death.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 14, 2000.

In a recent thread the concept of the necessity to endure temporal punishment for sins forgiven, whether in this world or the next (Purgatory) were mentioned. A comment was made to the effect that nowhere in the “revised” Bible, non-Catholic Christians use, could any references to the above be found. As 2 Mac. 12:43-46 does not hold any water with some of our distinguished visitors, as they have deprived themselves of the full knowledge of wisdom and truth; the following scriptural references from the King James Version of the Bible might be helpful in shedding some light: 2 Sam. 12:13-14; Matt. 3:11-12; Matt. 5:25-26; Matt. 12:32; Matt. 18:23-25; Luke 12:47-48; Luke 12:58-59; John 20:21-23 together with Matt. 18:18; 1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:24; Heb. 12:5; Heb. 12:14; Heb 12:23; 1 Pet. 3:19; Rev.5:2-3; Rev. 21:27.

Due to the risk of losing some readers to boredom, I chose not to paste the actual scriptural passages here. I also did not want to use up an inordinate amount of space on those who would not read them under any circumstances. Each reference listed relates in one way or another, to the concept of purifying one’s self in this world, and/or the next, in order to satisfy Our Saviour’s need for sanctification.

I would ask all of you to indulge me one small privilege! For the record, I am placing this post in all threads with the word “Purgartory” in their title. I hope this does not confuse anyone when reading recent responses to the forum.

St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, help us to accept whatever our Maker will appoint at the supreme moment of our final breath, and as always, pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), February 25, 2001.

Links for the above verses:
2 Sam. 12:13-14; ... Matt. 3:11-12; ... Matt. 5:25-26; ... Matt. 12:32; ... Matt. 18:23-25; ... Luke 12:47-48; ... Luke 12:58-59; ... John 20:21-23 together with Matt. 18:18; ... 1 Cor. 3:15; ... 2 Cor. 5:10; ... P hil. 2:10; ... C ol. 1:24; ... H eb. 12:5; ... Heb. 12:14; ... Heb 12:23; ... 1 Pet. 3:19; ... Rev.5:2-3; ... Rev. 21:27.

St. James, pray for us. St. Judas Maccabeus, pray for us.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 25, 2001.