Thoughts on Post-Mortem Purging

[steve]

From what I have read, it seems that the term "Purgatory," as the name of a specific place, was not used prior to the twelfth century by the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that, many, if not all, Christians believed that there is such a thing as postmortem purging, though specific beliefs differed. One book I have read suggested that the earliest view was of hell as a place of such purging, resulting in universal reconciliation, but that, after the Catholic Church adopted the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment, another place was conceived of for the purpose of purging, and was named Purgatory.

[Roberto]

From what I have read, it seems that the term "Purgatory," as the name of a specific place, was not used prior to the twelfth century by the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that, many, if not all, Christians believed that there is such a thing as postmortem purging, though specific beliefs differed. One book I have read suggested that the earliest view was of hell as a place of such purging, resulting in universal reconciliation, but that, after the Catholic Church adopted the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment, another place was conceived of for the purpose of purging, and was named Purgatory.

Steve,
That is what this author suggested, but is this backed up by evidence or is this just his belief?
R

[steve]

I have read so many books on this subject now, I can't remember exactly which book contained that suggestion. I think it was a book of over 300 pages, by John Wesley Hanson, entitled: "Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years," (1899). The book is a huge collection of documentation from the ancient writings of the church.

[mikew]

In response to the original post...

The Matt 18 is not specified as a final judgment of all mankind. So we are not necessarily able to apply this passage as providing details of a final judgment. You must first determine which passages establish the concept of a final judgment then you can see if Matt 18 is related.

Rom 2 describes a possible wrath event. You must determine whether this is a specific wrath event in the middle of time or one occuring as a possible final wrath event. We also must discover what God was wroth about. Is God angry at all people for being sinners or is God angry for specified episodes of misbehavior? For example, God's dealing with Jews, via the prophets, was to give a warning of the people's obstinate hearts and to declare a period of repentance and then to judge the people at that time. Is there such prophecies involved in the wrath of Rom 2?

The main task in each passage is to determine the context of discussion within the text. Sometimes from there, we may take an opportunity to form a model of the broader doctrinal context which the readers had.

My impressions to this point are of the wrath event of Rom 2 as addressed to a first century event relating to the destruction of the temple and a judgment extending throughout the Roman Empire.

[Roberto]

I have read so many books on this subject now, I can't remember exactly which book contained that suggestion. I think it was a book of over 300 pages, by John Wesley Hanson, entitled: "Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years," (1899). The book is a huge collection of documentation from the ancient writings of the church.

How is it significant that the book had 300 pages? Are you saying that in your memory it was jam packed with evidence that convinced you?

[steve]

I'm saying that there was so much in it that I don't remember whether that particular information was in it, or in another book, and there are too many pages for me to go looking for it.

[Roberto]

I'm saying that there was so much in it that I don't remember whether that particular information was in it, or in another book, and there are too many pages for me to go looking for it.

Is your memory that his evidence was convincing regarding the view of purgation in early church days

[steve]

His documentation was pretty good. There was some room left for conjecture and for drawing logical conclusions from silence. However, what he said (being a universalist himself, I presume) agreed largely with other streams of historical information that I have read from non-universalist historians.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Why would you say that Purgatory has a bad rap because of the Roman Catholic Church? Please explain what you mean, I'm curious and not looking to trick you or debate.

Hi Jon, sorry for the late reply. Since the majority of people on this forum are non-Roman Catholic, it is often viewed by us protestants that purgatory is an invention of the medieval Roman Church. I've heard that 2 Maccabees talks about prayer for the dead, and is one of the reasons why indulgences were introduced for those who would suffer in purgatory. Since we non-Catholics do not accept those books, we tend to not see much validity in those practices. The idea of indulgences seems bizarre to me, since I do not see how someone on earth praying for one who died could be appeasing to God. If anyone could pray for those in purgatory in order to affect their experience there, the greatest intercessor would be Christ Himself interceding for His people (and certainly He would want to relieve His people if He could, and surely Christ's prayers would be more effective). If post-mortem purging is true, then I would think it would be corrective in nature, and not something which could be shortened by someone's prayer. I don't necessarily see it as "paying the penalty for one's sins", but as a "progression in holiness in the intermediate state through a corrective discipline" (that is, if I was convinced of its reality... which is not yet the case).

I have also heard that people could buy indulgences from the medieval Roman Church leadership and in essence 'pay their relatives out of purgatory'. This seems to have been a money-hungry ploy of the Roman Church and one that took advantage of the poor and ignorant.

Do you outright reject the possibility that they may be right but you're searching for the Truth somewhere else? You are welcome to send a message privately to discuss it.

I do not reject Roman Catholicism due to any personal bias I currently have. I initially did when I first was born again because I had a bad experience being raised a nominal Catholic. The church I grew up in was very dead spiritually (most of the time), and I didn't learn anything about having a relationship with God at all. All I knew were the rituals and repetitive prayers and traditions of the Mass, and I did not really understand any aspects of the gospel thoroughly. I do think it's possible, though, that I had a sincere hunger for God in my younger years when I took "Holy Communion". I was older than all of the other kids in my class (I was 9 years old at the time, whereas most of the children are 6 or 7 when they take communion), so I was able to understand a little bit better what the teachers were saying. I distinctly remember a woman teaching on Jesus' miracle of the five loaves and two fish, and I remember believing it was true. I also remember taking my teacher's advice and thanking God in my own words after I received Communion. I'm thankful for that teacher because she seemed to make more of it than just a ritual. Perhaps I had a sincere experience with God at that time. However, it's difficult to say that I did since I later became rebellious and even an atheist after my "confirmation" which is supposedly when a Catholic receives the Holy Spirit. I remember that we had to take a test in order for us to be confirmed. It always seemed bizarre to me that I had to memorize the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds and pass a 100-question multiple choice test in order to receive the Holy Ghost.

Since being born again 5 years ago, I became involved in a denomination known as Calvary Chapel. I became an avid student of the Scriptures, and was pretty anti-Catholic during those first few years. I have cooled off a bit since then, and I am open to some of the claims of Roman Catholicism (and have even considered becoming Catholic again if I could be convinced of its truth). I have not been convinced as of yet, mostly due to my understanding of Scripture in light of ecclesiology, soteriology, and church history (mostly the idea of apostolic succession). The history of the Roman Church also makes me think that the Roman institution was more of an apostasy of Christianity than a preservation of its truth. I will be honest and admit, however, that I have not researched enough though. I sometimes attend the old Catholic church I grew up in (although I don't participate in all the practices), mostly because I want to remember my childhood and what God has brought me through, or because I really enjoy the songs they sing at the folk service (mostly written by the Western Priory, a bunch of monks from Vermont), or because I really like one of the priests who is a very godly man and has very good homilies (he was transferred to America from India). But I'd have to say that the whole hierarchical ecclesiological structure of Catholicism seems dangerous to me. Cults like the JW's or the Mormons have similar hierarchical structures, and I don't know if I could ever let the Pope interpret the Scriptures for me, especially since the popes have disagreed over the years and are constantly revising their predecessors.