A reader writes:
I am currently trying to explain the Catholic position on purgatory to a co-worker. I have given him some info I found on the internet. He looked it over and discussed with a fellow church member. He came back with, “if you believe in purgatory, then you are saying that Jesus dying on the cross was not good enough to save us!” How do I respond?
The purpose of purgatory is to purify us so that we are thoroughly holy and thus fit for heaven. It is part of the process by which we gain "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).
But the process of purification doesn’t start in purgatory. It starts in this life, and in Protestant circles it’s known as sanctification. (Catholics also use this term, though not always in exactly the same fashion; the term justification is also used in both circles though not always in the same ways.)
Now, where does sanctification come from? Is it something God gives us by his grace or something that happens apart from his grace?
Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is the product of God’s grace in our lives.
But why is God giving us this grace? Is it because of what his Son did on the Cross or is it separate from that?
Once again, Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is because of what Christ did on the Cross that God sanctifies us.
So sanctification–the process of being made holy–is something that happens to us only because of Christ’s death on the Cross.
Sanctification–including the final stage of sanctification in purgatory–thus presupposes the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It is so sufficient that it is not only enough to justify us but enough to sanctify us as well. The difference is that (to use language in a Protestant way) justification is something that happens at the beginning of the Christian life while sanctification is something that happens over the course of it.
So that’s what I’d tell him.
A blog is too ephemeral for such concise gems, Jimmy. You need to be doing a book of these kinds of things. Big, thick, well-indexed.
The perfect visual image, to go along with any explanation of purgatory, is Elijah being taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot.
“A blog is too ephemeral for such concise gems, Jimmy. You need to be doing a book of these kinds of things. Big, thick, well-indexed.”
I think Jimmy has mentioned previously that he wrote a series of articles for an “Encyclopedia of Catholic Apologetics”, which may at some point be published by Ignatius Press. If that book ever gets published, it might be very similar to what you have in mind.
You might also show him Colossians 1:24, which says:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.”
St. Paul, in his divinely-inspired letter to the Colossians, obviously saw the value that our own sufferings can have when joined with Christ’s suffering. If someone has a problem with the idea of purgatory, then it seems to me that they must also have a problem with this verse in the Bible.
In my previous comment, I should have said “If someone has a problem with the idea of purgatory based on the idea that purgatory minimizes the importance of Christ’s suffering . . . .”
Mark Shea’s piece in the March 2001 issue of This Rock was verrrrryyyy helpful for me in coming to terms with the concept purgatory. At the time, I was an Anglican (I’ve since come to the Catholic Church via the Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II), and was struggling with why we would need purgatory if Christ’s sacrifice was enough.
Here is the link: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea2.asp
Tim
If purgatory were contrary to the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work, then so would be God disciplining or purifying us in this life. It’s the same essential principle; just because God does it in the next life as well as this life doesn’t suddenly make it contrary to Christ’s finished work.
In this regard Hebrews 12 (esp. vv 10-11,14) was helpful to me:
Correct, Jimmy. And it sure seems like this life -is- Purgatory. . .
The difference seems to come down to whether we understand where it is written saying that when we see Him, we shall be made like Him, as meaning that when we see Jesus face-to-face we receive the grace of glorification and are made perfect in a flash, or if we must first be made perfect before we can see Him, thus purgatory.
Absolutely, Puzzled. Thus an old English prayer says, “Lord, send me now my purgatory” — that is, do what must be done to and in and for me so that when I die I will be ready to see you face to face. Purgatory in the next life is just the completion of the work begun in this life.
Great post. I just wanted to offer the following from my own experience in the hopes that it might help someone else and for reflection.
One of the problems that I have found in talking with people about Purgatory is that they have a hard time initially getting past the word, since it has accrued so many connotations over the centuries. That is, it’s a loaded term theologically for a lot of people (Fr. Groeschel blames Dante for this). When I explain the mechanism along the lines that Jimmy has it makes sense, but I can still sense the gut reaction to the word sometimes.
Given this, I’ve thought that using the terminology of Eastern Catholicism (ie theosis) might be helpful in explaining the doctrine to those who have an allergy to the term. It also serves to show that there are multiple ways of approaching the mystery of Purification after this life, and thus some theological leeway.
This site has helped me a bit with this:
http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory
Again, I think language is so important. Sometimes, if the person we are talking to has a bad impression of a term, it’s useful to shift gears and approach the problem from another direction. All things to all men as Paul says.
Several years ago while working as Outreach Director for the local interfaith organization, I shared an office a young Baptist minister, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship – though a graduate of the SBC seminary in Louisville.
During one of our many conversations he told me the real question was whether sanctification is a seperate moment from justification. There is plentiful disagreement among Protestants on the question. Many evangelicals that I’ve visited with appear to believe that when you’re justified, you’re simultaneously sanctified. The one’s who believe this will use it as an argument against purgatory. They don’t tend to be open to allowing personal works to have anything to do with salvation. I think it’s kind of a radical sola fide position.
I say radical because I’ve also met plenty of Lutherans and Protestants of the Reformed tradition who understand justification as seperate from, although related to, sanctification. It’s easier to explain purgatory to these guys.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t try to explain the truth of purgatory, but be prepared to hit a brick wall with most evangelicals. The funny thing, a really sad thing, is that many Catholics I know, including many priests, have admitted to me that they do not believe in purgatory.
Perhaps point out the difference between the eternal and temporal points of view might help with that? I mean, isn’t it true to say that from God’s point of view sanctification and justification are so intimately linked and perhaps we could say do “occur” at the same “time.” Here among mortal men though, we have to keep struggling on.
Speaking of which, the terms Church Militant, Church Triumphant, and the Church Suffering would be helpful in discussions of Purgatory, helping to shed light on this particular mystery of eternity.
Since Christ is our Head, the Church mirrors Her Lord in her different stages – just as Christ had His ministry on Earth, so the Church has her role in the world – just as Christ lives in Glory with the Father so the Church is already up in Heaven in the presence of God and in prayer. And important for this discussion, just as Christ spent time in the underworld and in death, the Church too is spiritually buried for a time until it is ready to rise to Heaven.
SDG,
Off topic, a friend saw “Dead man’s chest” and complained about Keira knightley’s lack of clothing. He didn’t go into detail, and since you saw it I’m hoping you could shed some light on the subject before I go (if I go) to the movie. Thanks.
SDG,
Off topic, a friend saw “Dead man’s chest” and complained about Keira knightley’s lack of clothing. He didn’t go into detail, and since you saw it I’m hoping you could shed some light on the subject before I go (if I go) to the movie. Thanks.
Please correct me if anything I say is heretical; I am in no way trying to subvert Church teaching, but the concept of purgatory is something I have been reading and ruminating about quite a bit lately.
I see purgatory as a complex theological concept, neither fully developed or fully defined. Similar to how Limbo was developed and abandoned as a theological concept, we don’t KNOW exactly what purgatory is, although we do believe it to exist.
Purgatory is essentially our release from whatever vestiges of attachments to earthly desires, sins, habits that obstruct our capacity to enter into the fullness of God’s glory in heaven.
Obviously, one in the state of mortal sin (another can of worms), has severed himself from the desire to be with God. But for those of us with, say, a compulsion for swearing, cigarettes, an occassional “white” lie, minor tendencies toward sloth or gluttony, a wandering eye toward the opposite sex, etc. – once God himself has been revealed to us in all his goodness, the desire to repent and release ourselves of these sins is the cause of purgatory. And of course, the penance for these sins would be most painful once we are endowed with full knowledge of God’s love and with full knowledge of how these sins hurt Christ.
I see Purgatory as a self-imposed punishment, just as Hell is self-inflicted. Those in purgatory know they are saved, but feel unworthy to fully embrace God’s goodness until all wounds against Christ have been healed and we have been healed of the sorrow and pain for all the venial sins for which God has forgiven us.
I am reminded of the “wedding feast” analogy: where heaven is compared to a wedding feast, to which you have been invited, but you do not wish to attend until you have cleaned your clothes, so not to insult your host by showing up dirty. This act of cleaning is analagous to Purgatory. Of course, the Host at this feast loves you in whatever state you are, but out of Love and Respect, you would want to make yourself look presentable.
Perhaps the Medieval imagery of equating Purgatory to a mountain or to the fires of Hell is outdated. I prefer to compare it to our experience in this life: to the guilt and suffering we experience for our sins, even after we know God has forgiven us.
Eastern Churches have not defined Purgatory in the same way, since most of this theology developed exclusively in the Latin Rite. They do, however, have a concept of people who “wait” to enter heaven. Just as we do, they pray for their dead.
The concept of praying for the dead has its roots in early Christianity, however our Thomistic sense of Purgatory is an evolution of these concepts.
Anyway, I guess my point is that my understanding is that the explanation of Purgatory is open outside of a few basic tenets -that those of us who die in the state of grace but not fully prepared to enter into the kingdom enter into a period of preparation before entering into the fullness of Heaven.
Thoughts?
Uh… well, apparently it wasn’t flagrant enough to have impressed itself on me as something that needed mentioning in my review / content advisory. Of course, I do miss things and make mistakes from time to time.
FWIW, kids-in-mind.com mentions “very/extremely low-cut” necklines and “deep cleavage.” (Can they possibly be talking about Keira Knightley?!) Screenit.com’s review won’t be available to non-subscribers until next week, I think.
But yeah, this is off-topic. FWIW, the film is under discussion at artsandfaith.com in this thread (the second link should drop you on page 2 of the thread, roughly where open post-viewing discussion of the film begins). I’m over there a lot, so you can post movie questions there — or write to me at DecentFilms.com. 🙂
SDG,
I knew I could count on your giving me some good links. Thanks again, man 🙂
Very few Christian women these days -aren’t_ wearing -very- deep cleavage. It is the style, apparently.
*blinks*. She doesn’t wear anything more suggestive in the second movie than she does in the first-we don’t even see her wandering around in nothing but a shift, as she does in rather long stretches of the first one.
There is rather more loose (and blunt) talk by *men* who are imagining her naked, but that also has precedent in the first one, and on the whole I would say the innuendo/sensual content meter is fairly close to where it is in the first one, certainly moreso than the gross-o-meter, violence-o-meter, and swear-o-meter (please do not let your kids say “bugger” after seeing this movie. It may not mean anything to most Americans, but it is extremely coarse and fairly politically incorrect in the circles where it is used. THANK YOU!), which have both been cranked up quite a bit.
derringdo1,
Thanks for the input.
read Dante
AMAZING
Purgatory seems LOGICAL, REASONABLE, JUST and most importantly for me MERCIFUL.
I do not understand the violent opposition to it.
Keira Knightly is beautiful by the way.
Perhaps she can play the consort of the Duke of Norfolk in another movie.
Karl Rahner linked Purgatory to reincarnation.
Interesting concept.