Purgatory for Protestants?

No, AFAIK. The term Authorized Version is not to distinguish them from some unauthorized version (If there were any such, and maybe there were), the issue was really what was to be in the AV.

Removing them from the AV calmed and soothed nerves amongst Anglicans at the time, and made for cheaper printing costs.

On this subject I do not play an authority on the internet.

On other subjects I do. Distinguishing mark is usually the number of books I own on a topic.

5 Likes

Purgatory is unpleasant, yet the holy souls in Purgatory rejoice in their sufferings, for they know that those sufferings bring them closer to God, and that they are assured of attaining the Beatific Vision on or before Judgment Day.

2 Likes

[quote=“mcq72, post:19, topic:479853”]

That’s incorrect. We absolutely can know if a sin is mortal. Otherwise why warn against that sin, and avoid committing that sin if one has no clue that they have committed such a sin?

Examples of mortal sin. The consequence is the tip off. If one dies in them one is excluded from heaven, as in they go to hell

mortal sin

examples: of mortal sin

mortal sins and continued These are examples.

1 Like

I’m Catholic now, but I feel the need to correct some of the things I’m seeing in the thread. The faith tradition I grew up in loved the King James and that was what was used in sermons and such, but there was never any hint that it was the only valid version. No Protestant I know of believes we will have any kind of sinful nature in heaven. What they do deny is that people destined for heaven are denied Beatific Vision for even a moment after they die. Rather, the purgation occurs at the moment of death without pain of sense and without the ability for anyone on earth to shorten the time. Mine also believed in "once saved “always saved” but denied double predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. They absolutely believe that they will be judged by God and their works will be rewarded or punished. The way “saved as if through fire” was exegeted was that some people would make it to heaven by the skin of their teeth and have no reward other than heaven itself because of their sins. They were also big believers in the Great Apostasy but that’s neither here nor there

2 Likes

An Anglican view of purgatory, like all such Anglican views, can vary. it is more likely to be thought of as a process/event, rather than a place, duration (if that is appropriate to such an event) is not speculated on much. And C. S. Lewis, definitely an Anglican, was ready to believe it was not pleasant.

One never knows, re: Anglicans.

3 Likes

What I know is that I am not going to get into a war of words with you.

No sin and no one is sinful in heaven.

If one goes straight to heaven then that’s true. The question is, how many get a straight shot

Even scripture talks about suffering in that process.

Purgatory isn’t complicated.

Since the next life has no clock, we can’t determine how long purgatory is for any particular individual. As Peter says one day to God is like a 1000 years and 1000 yrs is like a day. All we know is that the person who goes to purgatory and is purified there, died without even one unconfessed mortal sin on their soul. If mortal sin is still on their soul they go straight to hell.

The following is the Catholic/ Lutheran dialogue statement which includes a discussion of Purgatory. It has Lutheran signatories including the LCMS.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm

2 Likes

Not referring to just Southern Baptists. I know more Protestants than just those in that denomination.

g: “Good! Perhaps you can cite the source? What talk was it? Where is the recording located?”

It wasn’t a recording. The statement was made before a webinar he was hosting. But I believe he also made the same comments on one of the last episodes of Threshold Of Hope.

g: “No, lilypadrees. No individual persons “feelings” give them any authority whatsoever to determine what books should be in the canon.”

I never said it did.

g: “Do you know what a strawman argument is?”

Yes. And as I said previously, I am not going to engage in a war of words with you.

The United Methodist Church doesn’t use the KJV. In fact, the first time I went to the Methodist Church I remember being surprised they didn’t. Eventually as I learned more I wondered why I ever thought they would use it.

I went to a Presbyterian women’s college in the 1990s. The Presbyterians don’t use the KJV.

The Baptist church (the big one across the street from my Methodist one, LOL) my high school friends went to didn’t use it either. My grandmother was an independent FWB, and to this day THAT specific church congregation DOES say the KJV is the only version.

Not all Protestants use the KJV or proclaim it as the only acceptable version.

2 Likes

Then why do folks use Maccabees as a proof text for purgatory, when folks died from their mortal sin, and yet were prayed for with gift indulgences by others, as to help them out?

1 Like

with out brushing up on this, I think he said this occurs at the judgement after the resurrection, where our works in Christ are judged, and we suffer loss or gain reward accordingly, but all as a believer , and all in heaven.

They all must have omitted and ignored Martin Luther’s declaration stating the superiority of KJV-era English and how French, German, Latin and the rest are the languages of demons and how he had to whip himself on a daily basis as penance for not knowing the true language of God known as proper English.

I do recall reading somewhere that indeed Luther’s bible (and its distribution due to printing press and other factors) did help solidify the German language…not sure about English language, if they were just a step ahead or why (or upon further thought, you are being facetious…lol…got me then)…certainly vernacular bibles have helped many languages in this department, probably being the number one seller for generations.

Ok, I will take that as a “no”. I am not here to have a “war of words” either. But I am here to participate in Catholic Answers.

http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/straw_man_examples/496/

Pretty much you did. First I asked you for a source from Luther demonstrating that he removed the deuterocanon. You are still unable to provide that (because it does not exist).

Then you switched over to talking about the KJV, to which Luther had no contribution.

Then I asked you who “recognized” this version, and what authority they had to determine it is the right bible. What is your source for this assertion? To which you responded:

I noted that this would not be considered a scholarly or reasonable “source” to back up your assertion, at which point you invited me to conduct interviews:

So it seems you are demonstrating a pattern here of making baseless assertions that you have no credible sources to support.

1 Like

This is a good question. I think it is because wearing the amulets was not considered “mortal”.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/2mc/12

The reason they were wearing them is not given, but it seemed that they were considered to have paid for their indiscretion with their lives, but were still faithful to God. Wearing the amulet may not have been the sin of idolatry.

But the text does not say the prayers would be efficacious, as only God knows if they wore the amulets with full knowledge and consent. The reason the text is used is because it demonstrates the practice of praying for the dead.

He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

This has to be read in the light of the Old Covenant, and that the amulets were forbidden as a point of ceremonial law.

with out brushing up on this, I think he said this occurs at the judgement after the resurrection, where our works in Christ are judged, and we suffer loss or gain reward accordingly, but all as a believer , and all in heaven.

This always seems to be the crux of the issue. The anti-Catholic view must find another way to interpret the passage.

1 Corinthians 3:10 Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day (no, @steve-b, that is not Sunday!) will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 1 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

I have heard it said that a “man’s work” refers to his ministry, but Catholics do not separate ecclesial “work” from living as a disciple, so for us, that would include all of our deeds. At the judgment each persons’ deeds will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test our works. All that is not of God will be burned away from us.

Yup but still interesting to know the impact of vernacular Bibles though.

When did the Methodists and Presbyterians stop using the KJV? Is this just in the churches you’ve been to? The KJV is still the BIble of choice in the churches here.

g: “Ok, I will take that as a “no”. I am not here to have a “war of words” either. But I am here to participate in Catholic Answers.”

As am I. And I stated in a later post that I know what a straw man argument is.

g: “Pretty much you did. First I asked you for a source from Luther demonstrating that he removed the deuterocanon. You are still unable to provide that (because it does not exist).”

My source is Father Mitch Pacwa… Father Mitch is the one I found out what Martin Luther had done from. He did the studying. And I believe him.

g: “Then you switched over to talking about the KJV, to which Luther had no contribution.”

No. The KJV is always the Bible I was referring to. It’s others who brought up Bibles I’ve never heard of or read inc Luther’s version of the Bible. All I know that he wrote was a catechism. that’s sold on Amazon. And I haven’t read that either. No desire to read it or anything else he wrote.

g: “Then I asked you who “recognized” this version, and what authority they had to determine it is the right bible. What is your source for this assertion? To which you responded: Source: Every Protestant who doesn’t accept any Bible other than the KJV.”

Yes. What kind of source do you want? My source is Protestants who recognize the authority of the KJV. If you want scholars, no, I don’t have those.

g: “I noted that this would not be considered a scholarly or reasonable “source” to back up your assertion, at which point you invited me to conduct interviews:”

No, I didn’t invite you to conduct interviews. I said do the research yourself. If that involves conducting interviews to you, fine, go for it. I use search engines and speak to people I know, not in an interview capacity, just casual conversation.

g: “So it seems you are demonstrating a pattern here of making baseless assertions that you have no credible sources to support.”

Whatever you want to think, guanophore.

Not going to argue with you. It’s clear to me that you are not interested in the truth. That like the Protestants I conversed with elsewhere when the subject of Martin Luther first came up, were so floored that he had removed book 7 books and parts of two others from the Bible (and wanted several others removed that weren’t), that even if I gave you everything you wanted as source material, you still wouldn’t believe it.

So you can say whatever you want about me. I, at least, did my own research after listening to Father Mitch’s revelations which were made before a webinar he was giving. I doubt those comments were recorded, but he said the same thing on an episode of Threshold Of Hope. Unfortunately, I no longer have that one. But you may still be able to find it in EWTN’s audio files.

Do you understand that Fr. Pacwa is neither a reliable nor expert source on the topic of Martin Luther? His degrees are in Old Testament studies and Philosophy. He is not a Luther scholar by any means and has falsely accused Luther of murdering with his own hands!

Even if he were a Luther scholar, do you understand that 99% of Luther scholars —Lutheran, Roman Catholic and otherwise— do not consider those accusations to have a shred of truth?

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.