About the ludicrous invention of the so-called purgatory. (abbreviation: LISP) 1Cor 3:15 doesn't refer to the LISP. Fire is testing one's works and not their soul. It doesn't mean "saved by fire", but "escaped through (or across) fire". Saying that fire burns away everything which is worthless by no means does indicate suffering of the soul. Paul used this sentence as a simile taken from everyday life. Building a house from precious material / straw etc. means serving the Lord adequately / insufficiently. The context is about teaching properly and receiving reward for it / teaching strawlike things and RECEIVING NO REWARD, but not suffering in the LISP. To "suffer loss" by no means indicates suffering of the individual. It refers to the loss which one has to suffer when his properties are burnt away. And the simile requires that in the expression "through fire" the fire be something from which a man escapes, and not with whose aid he escapes. Nay, it would be indeed laugh- able if Paul had understood his words like the inquisition, which put some people to the stake to save their souls by destroying their bodies. In a simile, it would be natural to compare hard-to-understand spiritual things to more easily understandable ones, primarily for the sake of the Corinthians who weren't experts even on the use of excommunication or on the Eucharist or on the purpose of speaking in tongues. Purgatorian explanation does the opposite: it introduces a new concept and destroys the simile. Hungarian Catholic Bible translations have strange wording here: "By means of fire" or "With the aid of fire". Note, "through" in English or Greek may have several meanings but in Hungarian this mistranslation smells from miles. How can one - in earthly life - ESCAPE with the help of fire which burns all his properties? -------------------------------- Col 1:24 has nothing to do with the LISP. Paul says that he completes what is lacking from Christ's suffering in his body for Christ's body, which is the church. So if one says that this verse speaks about the LISP then is the LISP on earth? Or that Paul didn't say the prescribed amount of Hail Mary's, so he had to expiate his sins by suffering? Or that Paul suffered for other people's sins? No, it's nonsense. Paul probably had in mind "If I was persecuted then how much you...", or "the slave isn't greater that his master", or "I got a thorn in my flesh so that I shouldn't become puffed up", or "as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ" (2Cor 1:5.) Christ's atoning work, together with His suffering for our redemption, is complete. No human suffering can redeem others. Taking up crosses is mistakenly said to mean this absurdity, as it means humbling our- selves and following Christ without murmurings. In this particular epistle to the Corinthians, Paul shrewdly expounds the way how this connection between suffering and consolation is carried out: by the suffering one's being formed a better, ie. more broken, vessel, so that the hearers may be edified by his personal example and teaching. Paul was made a better vessel by his suffering, or thorn, or the persecut- ions that befell him; and this had an impact on other Christians: his example encouraged others, for "indeed through tribulations must we enter the kingdom of God." This is what he meant by "for the Church": for the edification of the Church. Nothing like being purified from sins after his falling asleep, or expiating that part of the Church's transgressions which weren't paid by Christ. Those interpreting this passage in this absurd sense betray not just their inability to see the context, but also their innately perverted imagination of the communion of saints. As to "what is lacking from Christ's sufferings", one may notice the distinction between "suffering" and "sacrifice". Roman Catholic advocates, indeed, need some elucidation in the scope of these words, as they with a Pavlovian reflex read "contribution to Christ' expiatory sacrifice" here. But the case is much simpler: Christ acknowledges the sufferings of His followers, and also those of the weak, afflicted, unjustly harassed, as His own sufferings, as in the oracle "I was sick and you visited me, I was hungry and you fed me". And it is in this sense that Paul completes Christ't suffering, not in the sense of expiation. Nobler RC scholars also admit it, eg. Gellert BE'KE'S and Patrik DALOS (Hungarian monks, the first of whom is still alive) in their translation made in 1951, where the footnote says: "Paul doesn't want to complete the bodily sufferings of the Saviour, as they are of infinite value, but about the afflictions that His Mystical Body, the Church, has to suffer in a common lot with Christ." The trans- lation has three imprimatur's. ------------- Mt 5:26: "You won't get out of here until you pay the last penny" doesn't mean that he will ever get out. It is clear from Marty Helgesen's favourite argument concerning "He hadn't known her until she gave birth to her firstborn son" doesn't mean that "afterwards he knew her" etc., which can be paraphrased as: "A doesn't happen until B takes place" || \ || / \||/ /||\ / || \ ___||___ \ / \/ "After B A necessarily ensues" Other parts of the parable also seem to show that it's not the LISP what Jesus has in mind here. Who is my adversary who gives me over to the judge? The devil? Shall I reconcile the devil on the way? Rather, as the geometric parabola meets a straightline tangentially only at one point, this parable has one meeting point with reality: that we should not hold a grudge against anyone. Consider the context: it is in the Sermon on the Mount, discussing the Law, and here specifically the commandment "do not murder". Those worthy expounders of nonexistent mysteries argue that wrath (which is equal to murder) deserves the LISP. Purgatorians have to congratulate themselves for this result. ------------------ Paul's mention of Onesiphorus in Tim 1:18 can hardly be understood as a prayer for a dead person. First, nothing indicates that he is dead. Rather, that he is on way, far from his beloved ones. Second, even if he is dead and LISP exists then a RC prayer shouldn't be directed towards his finding mercy on that day (that is, the day of judgment) but rather to the shortening of his anguish. The most natural interpretation of Paul's words is that he didn't know about the present state of Onesiphorus (regardless of whether he spoke about this man as a dead one or as a living one). And he expressed hope that unlike Phygellus and Hermogenes, he perseveres (or if dead, persevered) till the end. --------- Mt 12:32: "Blasphemy of the Spirit won't be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come" only destroys the whole purgatorian case. For they draw the following base conclusion: "It means that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come". It is nonsense because they themselves teach that the sins of those suffering in the LISP are actually forgiven, yet they aren't expiated by the individual. Even if they seek refuge behind the distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins, they shall be confounded by their own judgment. If the LISP is a quasi-hell where the so-called venial sins are paid for then let me ask them: is the blasphemy against the Son of God a "venial" sin? For Jesus not only threatened the Pharisees with hell due to blasphemy of the Spirit but He also promised, yes, promised that everyone who speaks blasphemy against the Son of God WILL be forgiven, so He thus extended forgiveness even to those Christians who commit the blasphemy of the Son and never make a "sacramental confession" about it, neither perform an act of "perfect contrition" while in this flesh. Can this generous promise be interpreted as referring to the forgiveness of "grievous" or "mortal" sins? On the other hand, what gets in the way of applying it to "venial" sins? To expand further, Jesus thus declared that every sin except that one against the Spirit is venial, for they WILL surely be forgiven. Then let purgatorians come with their logic! (Yes, it's my favourite method: reductio ad absurdum. I am guilty of following the typical purgatorian principles in interpreting Scripture: prooftexting, neglecting the various genres blatantly, snipping the context, eisegesis, private interpretation, unbiblical conclusions, trusting my own common sense instead of the Word of God, nullifying it with my traditions. Perhaps this will open their eyes, too.) Seriously: the Lord said "neither in this world nor in the world to come" rhetorically, to emphasize the judgment on the Pharisees. They will be excluded by themselves on earth; and in the world to come, they will be punished by God Himself. Thus, they have no hope and no excuse. -------------- Mt 18:34 - Again, "You won't get out of here until you have paid the last penny". Those who blindly take this verse as proof for the LISP actually consider this thing a semi-hell where sins can be expiated by the sinner in a manner like "And God said: Now you have suffered enough, I forgive you". And what kind of sins? Those costing ten thousand talents! An inexpiable multitude of grievous sins! Yet the brave champions of the LISP comfort us: "after you have paid all, you will be let out". What about those, however, who die with un- satisfied sins amounting to 1000 years of LISP - five minutes before the judgment day? Will God kindle more flames for their sakes? ----------------------- Those verses from the OT which were used by Trent as prooftexts for forgiveness of sins not necessarily going along with the remission of the so-called temporal punishment, and further, for the existence of the LISP, (e.g. plague after David's census, Miriam's leprosy, death of David's and Bathseba's child, etc.) - (a) all speak about earthly disciplinary suffering, (b) all are OT examples, (c) there is no teaching attached to them by NT authors which would allude to the purgatorian conclusion. Now, what will they respond to me if I ask: (a) Why discipline a dead one? (b) What happened to the gospel of free grace? Did the Law overcome it, so one has to "perform this (ie. to suffer) and he will live"? (c) Why do you put aside the commandment of God with your traditions? It is not APOSTOLIC TRADITION but APOSTATIC ADDITION. -------------------- The famous text from Maccabees when people pray for the dead is weak for two reasons: (1) this book is apocryphal, labelled "mere fable" by Jerome, (2) those who were prayed for had committed idolatry, because things dedicated to idols were found in their pocket. The punishment for idolatry can hardly be lessened to the level of the LISP. It's hell. No room is left for the weak evasion that they "did penance" for their sins but couldn't "perform the works of satisfaction". True repentance is always manifest in abhorring our sins, turning to God's infinite mercy and in throwing away the things dedicated to the idols. These slaghtered ones, on the contrary, carried their sordid things under their apparel, thus making clearer than daylight that they didn't do any "penance" but remained in the state of "mortal sin" until their death. Thus, by the time they were prayed for, they were burning in the unquenchable flames of hell. So (a) the survivors blasphemed God by asserting that they acted in a godly way when praying for these particular dead people, (b) the author of the book testified about his utter ignorance concerning the law when he spoke about this event as something highly instructive for his readers, (c) those accepting this apocryphal verse as proof for the LISP necessarily accept the author's grave doctrinal errors. ---------------- Those maintaining that a third temporary state other than heaven or hell is not contrary to Scripture, because Luke 23:43 speaks about Christ's promise to be together with the repentant thief in paradise, are gravely mistaken when they clamour that this place is the LISP. Jesus said that He had not yet gone to heaven (John 20:17). Where did He meet the thief, then? It is Peter to write that Jesus "went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19) after He died. The allegation that this place is the LISP is not cogent, as it is Sheol, to which the OT attributed some kind of conscious state of mind; where both the righteous and the unrighteous had to go after death. That Sheol was divided into two parts, is clear from Luke 16:19-31, that is, the case of the rich man and Lazarus. There are two parts: the first one has incessant torturing flame, this is hell; the other is Abraham's bosom with comfort. Between them, an abyss. Where is the LISP where there is suffering yet also an alleged promise to return among the righteous? Maybe it is hidden in the abyss, so that Luke's readers shouldn't stumble, seeing the existence of a place that offers forgiveness to sins which even the blood of Christ was unable to wash away. ------------- Advocates of the LISP have to explain why they offer private masses for the dead in order that their suffering in the LISP should be lessened. For if they are being purified in the flames then the abatement of the fire or the omission of some suffering would render them blemished on the last day. Let them not say that their mass helps those in the LISP, and they are made purer by an offering. I can refute this ridiculous subterfuge with their own apocryphal tales: if a shadowlike OT sacrifice could purify many dead unrepentant idol worshippers entirely, then why do they blaspheme Christ's one and only sacrifice by asserting that it, being "re-presented" in the mass, cannot with full certitude liberate everybody from the LISP? For they offer their Mass frequently for one man, too, thus giving away that they despise it as being incapable of bringing one man out from the LISP, although they believe the hired sacrificers in 2Mac to have been able to cleanse with their animal sacrifice unrepentant dead idolaters frying in hell. It's clear to any man of sound judgment that they don't believe even what they parrot: that "the Mass is Christ's sacrifice, the re-present- ation and application to the forgiveness of our sins". For if it con- ferred the full power of the sacrifice of the cross then one Mass would be able to bring the so-called poor souls out of the LISP. So they want to have their Mass accepted on the ground of its capacity to conduct the "benefits" of Christ's death on the cross to us "in time", but in turn, they fail to fulfill their promise when they betray with their practice that one Mass isn't enough to make the LISP empty. They didn't just invent a mock-hell which they alleged to be able to open and close according to their caprice drawing them hither and thither, but also despised the only sacrifice of Christ, saying that it cannot, even with the communication of their allegedly efficient Mass, bring out all the so-called poor souls from the LISP. Thus they substituted a vile merchandise for the only One in whom we have our boasting: Christ, as crucified. Because of sordid gain did many popes belch tremendous cartloads of indulgence sheets. They envied the Jewish priests who were given a big heap of silver for opening the gates of hell once, so they, longing for a similar reward, dug up suspicious parts of patristic literature to support the sheer fiction of the LISP. For their filthy lucre did they make a foul merchandise of the gullible populace, until their whole business finally dwindled, as it couldn't bear the piercing light of the Word of God. This way is their other subterfuge unmasked, which is intended to excuse the practice of Masses for the dead, viz. that it brings the "priests" no serious income - nay, for what ends did pope Leo XII send special preachers of extra indulgences to Germany if not for the sordid reason of finishing a luxurious basilica? To expose their nefarious invention to due shame, it is wholly sufficient to point out its birth. ------------------- The infamous C.S.Lewis quote of Newman's Dream is nothing but an old-womanish dream. That soul, after having been pardoned, begs for purification, even if God says that it will hurt. Thrice blasphemous is this dream. (1) It ruins the power of Christ's blood which cleanses us from our filthy sins, saying that flames will do it instead. (2) It offends the majesty of God the Judge when it babbles that one may choose if he wants to be purified or not, and God will confirm his judgment. (3) It makes the Lord a treacherous liar who litters around unwarranted threats, for He promised that the one not having wedding dress will be thrown out unto the outer darkness, and Newman asserts that God is willing to suffer him to remain at the supper. -------------------- Those who say speculatively "No unclean will enter the New Jerusalem" and "Who believes in Me shall never perish", so "There should be a place for those who have believed until the end but who are not entirely clean, in order to be cleansed" actually attribute the power of cleansing to our deeds: rosary, almsgiving, fasting, etc. Thus they render the blood of Christ ineffective in cleansing us when we turn away from our iniquity and repent to God. Also, they think that faith is something dead, sloth- ful, and reluctant. Conversely, faith is a living, active, loving thing which can be tested by its works. As Luther said to his foaming opponents: "faith is a restless thing" (unruhig Ding). ---------------- Again, the advocates of the LISP necessarily have to profess that (1) the wages of sin isn't death but sometimes the heavenly bliss (for they say that the so-called venial sins, although conscious and unrepentant, merit not hell but only the LISP, from which the sinner pops into heaven), (2) that our sufferings have more power than that of Christ (for they assert that although we may believe in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, rely fully on God's mercy and seek the forgiveness of sins in His blood, still we have to satisfy and expiate our sins so that we faced no punishment. As Calvin once said: "What kind of remission is that when the moneylender gives a certificate attesting that the loan has been repaid fully to him?"), (3) that Christ's blood was not sufficient for cleansing us from all sins (for they voice that the blood of the martyrs "adds something to the store of this treasure" - quotation from The Church Teaches, TAN, 1973, p.320, #819, alias Denz. 552: the bull of pope Clement VI "Unigenitus Dei Filius", 1343.), (4) that the Orthodox Christians are damned heretics (for they don't believe in the LISP, although they were forced to sign humiliating decrees to this effect at the "union" councils of Lyons and of Florence), etc.