By

Jeff Childers

"This is the day the Lord has made. We rejoice and are glad!" My dear brother in Christ

Jesus, today we are one day closer to the consummation of salvation history and our eternal bliss in the beatific vision of the Ancient of Days. On that Day, made holy by the sanctifying grace of God so freely and richly poured out upon us poor sinners, we will finally be able to shout, "Alleluia! The wedding feast of the Lamb has begun!" Happy are we that are called to that supper.

I thank you for publishing my article in the June issue of Gospel Truths. It speaks much to the integrity of the publication and to your own personal integrity that honest consideration was paid to a view so radically different than your own. Your well-written and gracious response is also very much appreciated. Often enough you have pointed out legitimate flaws in my reasoning, and for that I thank you. There are some issues you raised, however, with which I can not yet claim full agreement. This letter is written in response to your article, "Response to a Correction," in the June issue. I have also enclosed a brief synopsis of this letter which in the interest of truth I submit for publication. Again, I grant permission for my article as well as any excerpts from this letter to be published without payment, provided the author is credited. I hope that you will remember me in your prayers, sir. If, as you state, I am truly separated from "the Lord's fold," then I desire to be shown as much and to return. Raised in the Church of Christ, I have nothing but love and respect for her, and would return on a dime if my convictions led me to do so. My prayer is that we will both openly and honestly consider the topics at hand. Please pray that I may be humble enough to not allow pride or self-assurance to cloud my vision of that beautiful truth that is Christ. The final goal of all discussions such as these is set forth by St. Paul: "Finally, brothers, rejoice. Mend your ways, encourage one another, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the holy ones greet you. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." (2 Corinthians 13:11-13)

Perhaps the best place to begin an in depth study of the doctrine of Purgatory is the concept of sin and punishment. In brief, the Catholic Church teaches that sins fall into two categories: original and actual. Original sin, as mentioned by the Psalmist, expounded by St. Paul and understood by most non-Pelagian Christian traditions, is the inherited stain of Adam's guilt with which all, save Christ and his Blessed Mother, are born. Original sin results in a fallen and sinful human nature with a tendency toward actual sins. Actual sins are transgressions of the Law of God and the Natural Law which each individual commits.

In Church of Christ and Pelagian thought, as discussed by Mr. Needham in the June issue, actual sins are the only true sins. Our actual sins then fall under two categories: mortal and venial. Mortal sins result in the death of the soul, which is eternal Hell. Venial sins weaken the relationship with God. Catholic thought holds that all attachment to sin must be removed for a man to enter Heaven. Thus, character-building works known as temporal punishment are necessary prior to the beatific vision. Purgatory is a place where that temporal punishment is administered.

In your article, you argued that the distinction between mortal and venial sins is arbitrary and groundless, because "all sin brings spiritual death." Yet, God in his mercy "is faithful and just to forgive" all sins that are repented. For the Catholic Church to claim that God will not fully forgive a man's sin and require further punishment "is repugnant to the very concept of God, who is rich in mercy and grace." Thus, in a quite inflammatory condemnation, you declared that "Catholicism's god would fail to remit the sins (of) a true penitent who confesses sins and seeks pardon."

 First, it should be pointed out that forgiveness of sin is full and complete from the moment it is received in Catholic thought. When God forgives a man of a sin, that man can be assured that he will not suffer eternal damnation because of that sin. From the very instant the grace of God removes the sin, a person is bound for Heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

The Sacrament of Penance is one way which Catholics receive the forgiveness of sins. In the Sacrament, God forgives the sins of a penitent who humbly approaches one of God's ordained and confesses his sin. Tertullian wrote that the Sacrament was "the second plank of salvation after the shipwreck, which is the loss of grace." I am well aware that you reject the authority of Catholic priests to forgive sins in the name of Jesus and the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. That, however, must be left for another day. The Catechism states that "only God forgives sins." (CCC 1441) We can be certain, then, that whether approaching God through his priest or alone, the sinner who has been absolved is totally forgiven.

In your article you posed a question: "We would know from our Catholic friends, what sins would the true and living God fail to forgive when a truly penitent believer confesses and prays for pardon?" The answer is none. There is no sin a man can commit which is more powerful than the grace of God. If one truly repents of his sin he will under no circumstances be consigned to eternal torment for that sin. As you yourself cited, St. John assures us that "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) 

Very important to understanding the concept of temporal punishment are those last words in the beloved disciple's beautiful statement: that God will "cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Let us imagine that I should fall away from the Church. Suppose I abandon the morality of Catholicism and become involved in seedy underground nightlife. For several years, I am involved in a drug culture and sexual perversions of all sorts. After several years, I am convicted in my heart of the evil of my ways and repent, begging the mercy of God. Surely, he has forgiven me, as "he is faithful and just" to do. However, for years I have not spiritually matured a nanosecond. I have deep emotional attachments and profound longings for the forbidden pleasures which I have by the grace of God abandoned. Am I free from unrighteousness? By no means! Instead, it will take much hard work to be free from the plagues of my sin. In order for God to cleanse me from all unrighteousness, as the Theologian promised, he will need to work in me many character building good works. This character building process, this cleansing from all unrighteousness, is what the Church refers to as temporal punishment. Now that we have considered a hypothetical example of temporal punishment practically lived out, let us now examine how the Church officially explains it: "Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the eternal punishment of sin." On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the temporal punishment of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

"The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the old man and to put on the new man." (CCC 1472, 1473)

In further examining your claim that "Catholicism's god would fail to remit the sins (of) a true penitent" in relation to temporal punishment, two issues need to be addressed: 1) Is the notion that God relies on character building temporal punishments to cleanse us from all unrighteousness even when sins have been forgiven "repugnant to the very concept of God" as you claim? 2) What necessitates temporal punishment if our sins are all ready forgiven? Since you have gone so far as to insinuate in no subtle way that I worship a different and lesser god than you, I feel that these questions are of vital importance.

There are several examples in the Scripture of God in his infinite wisdom inflicting temporal punishments on repentant sinners. Perhaps the most profound is that of King David. When the Prophet Nathan confronted David with his sin of adulterous homicide, the King wept and repented. It was this episode which inspired King David to compose the Miserere, Psalm 51.

I quote the Miserere here at length so that there can be no question that King David qualifies as, in your own words, "a true penitent who confesses sins and seeks pardon."

"For the leader. A psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him after his affair with Bathsheba.  

There can be little doubt that David was just the type of penitent sinner whom you described. When David acknowledged his guilt, Nathan declared: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die." (2 Samuel 13:13) The Prophet did not stop there, however. He continued, "But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (13:14) Why did the child have to die? Notice that there is no natural logical progression in Nathan's words: you have insulted God so he must die. The child died as a form of temporal punishment inflicted on David to strengthen his fallen character that he might rule God's people well.

Mr. Spears, you claim that the idea that God would punish someone whom he has forgiven is "repugnant to the very concept of God, who is rich in mercy and grace." The Psalmist sees it not as repugnant, but "justified" and "without reproach." David, though forgiven and no longer damned to Hell, was not washed from his guilt entirely at the instant of forgiveness. Rather, he implores: "O wash me more and more from my guilt and cleanse me from my sin." God killed the man's child, and he sang, "my tongue shall ring out your goodness." 

This story of David is the most striking example of the purifying nature of temporal punishment. I think it is enough to show that if temporal punishment is repugnant to one's concept of God, perhaps one should consider reevaluating his concept of God. Another example is that of Moses. After Moses died, the Deuteronomist writes that "since then no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." (34:10) Who could doubt that Moses died forgiven of his sin? Yet, this forgiven "true penitent" was told by God: "You shall die on the mountain you have climbed, and shall be taken to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and there was taken to his people; because both of you broke faith with me among the Israelites at the waters of Meribath-kadesh in the desert of Zin for failing to manifest my sanctity." (33:50,51)

 Job is another example of temporal punishment. In Job 1:8, God describes Job as "blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil." Job, though not without sin, was a virtuous man guilty of no unrepented transgressions. The Lord allowed Satan to afflict him with punishments, yet God's purposes always work for our betterment. While Satan used the afflictions to test Job's faith, God used them to build his character. St. Paul experienced similar problems in his thorn in the flesh, which God insisted he retain. The Apostle also tells us in Romans that our physical death is the result of our sin. Even though people are forgiven, they still suffer the temporal punishment of physical death.

The idea of God's punishments as a means of building character being gifts of his abundant grace is unpopular. It is more so today than ever, when a Gospel of health and wealth is the latest fad. People deceive themselves into believing that anyone with enough faith will have all suffering alleviated. Christianity does not free us from suffering. Rather, it calls us to suffer and gives that suffering a profound meaning. Temporal punishment begins to make more sense once we understand the Catholic idea of redemptive suffering.  

The doctrine of redemptive suffering holds that we experience Christianity most profoundly when we share in the sufferings of Christ. By uniting our suffering and our good works with that of our Savior, we offer them to God for our own growth or as prayers for others. It is only in light of redemptive suffering that the tragedies of life make any sense. Why did God allow thousands of the first Christians, including 12 of the 14 apostles and all of the first 30 popes, to die cruel martyrdoms? Why are churches burned? Why do Christians suffer financial difficulty? Or ridicule? The Catechism says:

Having examined temporal punishment in the light of scriptural examples and the idea of redemptive suffering in Catholic and Biblical thought, I believe I can successfully offer this answer to question one: The notion that God would punish a man for his sin even after forgiveness is not "repugnant to the very concept of God, who is rich in mercy and grace."

It has been shown from Scripture, Mr. Spears, that God does inflict temporal punishment on forgiven sinners for their sanctification. The question which remains: Is it necessary to complete all temporal punishment or, in other words, be completely sanctified, before entering Heaven? To establish an answer in the affirmative is to all but conclusively prove Purgatory.

As you quoted, it is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church as decreed by the Council of Trent that "if any shall say that after the grace of justification has been received, the offense is so remitted to the penitent sinner and the guilt of eternal punishment so effaced that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be suffered, either in this world or in the world to come in Purgatory, before admission can be attained to the kingdom of Heaven, let him be accursed."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994 by order of Pope John Paul II, explains the doctrine of Purgatory in this way:  

The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: "As for lesser faults, we must believe that, before the final judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come." (St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4:39: PL 77, 396; cf.. Mt. 13:31, 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Pet. 1:7)

This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.' (2 Macc. 12:46) From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. (Cf.. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856) The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: 'Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.' (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. In 1 Cor. 41:5)"

As a side note, the abbreviation DS in the Catechism refers to Denzinger-Schonmetzer's Enchridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. The affirmative answer to our second question is attained by considering these points:  

Propositions:
1) That we are sinners in need of justification in order to avoid Hell.
2) That justification comes by the grace of God.
3) That our baptism begins a process of sanctification.
4) That by definition the end result of sanctification is holiness.
5) That our good works and our temporal punishments are means which God uses to achieve our sanctification.
6) That nothing impure can enter the presence of God.
7) That few reach true sanctity prior to death.
8) That further sanctification is necessary before entering the presence of God.

If all 8 propositions can be honestly maintained, question two has been successfully answered in the affirmative and Purgatory has been all but proven. 

Proposition One holds that we are all sinners in need of justification in order to avoid Hell. In today's society, this message is unpopular. The 17th Century Enlightenment promised a Golden Age of human perfection to be achieved apart from God and his Holy Catholic Church. People are being sucked in today by the notion that humanity is basically good, all the while the world is as evil as it has ever been. I have always respected the words of Ghandi whom, when asked what he thought of Western Civilization said, "I think it would be a good idea." In a world where nobody talks about sin anymore, who needs a Savior?

We all do. The Church has constantly maintained since the time of St. Paul that "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) In Chapter 2 of the same Epistle, the Apostle condemns his readers in these words: "By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works." Without justification, we are damned to Hell. Proposition One stands.

Proposition Two holds that we receive this most necessary justification by the grace of God. CCC 1996, 1997 states: "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is the favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an adopted son he can henceforth call God "Father,' in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church."

 St. Paul writes in Ephesians 1:7 that in Christ "we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace that he lavished upon us." In Romans, he states: "For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ." (5:17) Proposition Two stands.

The Third Proposition is that our baptism begins a life long process of sanctification. CCC 1995 states: "By giving birth to the inner man, justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification...But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and it's end, eternal life.' (Rom 6:19,22)" 

Sanctification is described by St. Peter as "grow(ing) in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 3:18) We achieve holiness by the grace of God working in us. This is very practical and few would argue against it. As we mature in our faith, we find ourselves becoming more and more Christlike. The more we put off the old man, the more we are able to put on the new. Proposition Three stands.

Proposition Four states that by definition the end result of sanctification is holiness. This really needs no defense. The process of sanctification is a process of being made holy. The end result of being made holy is, most obviously, holiness. Proposition Four stands.

Proposition Five states that our good works and our temporal punishments are means which God uses to achieve our sanctification. This has already been discussed in some detail in the above defense of temporal punishment. We saw earlier that it takes hard work, including suffering, to grow as we should. Spiritual maturity is a difficult struggle. Alone, you and I would have no shot. Thank God, then, that "it is not I, but Christ living in me."

In a passage you quoted in your article, St. Peter discusses our trials on earth by which we grow toward sanctity: "Beloved, do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening to you. But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let no one among you be made to suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as an intriguer. But whoever is made to suffer as a Christian should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name. For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God? And if the righteous one is barely saved, where will the godless and the sinner appear? As a result, those who suffer in accord with God's will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good." (1 Peter 4:19)

St. Peter goes on to write: "Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings." (5:8,9) Why does God allow his faithful to suffer? "The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ Jesus will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little." (5:10) This beautiful outline of our sanctification, by good works and temporal punishments. Proposition Five stands.

Proposition Six holds that nothing impure can enter the presence of God. Or, to phrase it positively, only that which is holy can enter into the presence of a holy God. In my June article, I mentioned the case of Uzzah. Uzzah was doing what he thought was right in steadying the Ark of God. Yet, righteous as he was, he was not holy. Since nothing unholy can enter God's presence, Uzzah was struck dead. One can also appeal to Moses, who could not look on the face of God. Elijah, too, hid his face in his cloak when God passed by. Revelation speaks of Heaven: "Nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies." (21:27) The unholy cannot see God and live. Nothing unholy will enter into Heaven. Proposition Six stands.

Proposition Seven holds that few reach true sanctity prior to death. Even though Christ commanded us to be perfect as his Father is perfect, few ever realize this goal. The greatest of Christians often still find themselves struggling with sins. The process of sanctification is often not finished at the time of death. I doubt that any would argue against that. Proposition Seven stands.

Proposition Eight holds that for those who are not holy when they die, further sanctification is necessary prior to entering Heaven. At this point, I am not yet arguing that such sanctification is available. Rather, I am stating that such sanctification would have to occur in order for one who is not holy to enter Heaven. Proposition eight is the inescapable conclusion of the first seven propositions. St. Paul writes in Romans 6:22 that, as servants of God, "the benefits that you have lead to sanctification, and its end is eternal life." Proposition Eight stands.

The veracity of these eight propositions leads to one of two conclusions: 1) That only those who reach true holiness in life will be saved; or 2) That God has made further sanctification available after death for those who die in his grace. The first conclusion is untenable. It is the constant teaching of the Church from the time of Scripture that when a man's sins are forgiven he will not suffer eternal fire because of them. Conclusion one requires that God damn the souls of those he has forgiven. The second conclusion, then, seems to me the only possible conclusion. Conclusion Two stands.

Thus far in this examination of sin a punishment, it has been shown that God uses character building temporal punishment to strengthen his children and, therefore, temporal punishment is not "repugnant to the very concept of God." It has also been shown that temporal punishment is necessary prior to entering Heaven, whether in this life or in the next. Lastly, the idea of mortal and venial sin should be discussed briefly. It will be discussed in more detail in the later section of this letter on Scripture.

For the time being, I will hold off on answering your Scriptural objections to mortal and venial sin, and simply make one brief appeal to logic. This illustration should serve to show that there are venial sins, not leading to Hell. In your June article, you stated: "The distinction made by the Catholics on mortal and venial sins is arbitrary and anti-biblical.

All sin brings spiritual death, separation from God." Mr. Spears, please consider the following. We are commanded by God to obey the laws of the government, provided they do not violate the Law of God. To violate the laws of the government is sinful. Even if a governmental law is not specifically mentioned in the Law of God, it is still sin to break it, since God has ordained governments with temporal authority. On this, I would imagine, we both concur.

Now, Mr. Spears, please think back. Have you ever known a Christian who has neglected to put on a seat belt? That is a violation of the law, and sinful. Will he burn in eternal Hell? Have you ever known a Christian who has not turned on his headlights when he used his windshield wipers? A sin! Will he suffer the fire which never dies? Have you ever known a Christian who has owned property which violated zoning restrictions? A sin! Shall he be cast into Gehenna? Have you ever known a Christian with a headlight out? Or a business whose property was unfit for habitation? Or a jaywalker? Or a Christian youth out past 10:00? Or who rode a bike on the sidewalk? Or blew a stop sign? Or broke the speed limit? Shall these Christians, all of whom are indisputably guilty of sin, be told "Depart from me. I never knew you?" Or, as the Muslims say, "This is the Hell you've been threatened with. Burn therein this day?" If you answer that they will not suffer hellfire, you acknowledge in these ridiculously extreme cases sin that is venial. If you answer that they will burn, please excuse me while I go to confession!

There are examples which are not as laughable. If I see a beggar and rationalize that he'd just use the money for booze, I have left Christ on the street. I have neglected my duty to be charitable, and have sinned. If I do not manage my time or money wisely, I show poor stewardship and spiritual immaturity, and I have sinned. If my prayer life is not what it's supposed to be, even though I may pray five times a day, I have sinned. If out of laziness I choose not to take advantage of optional things the Church offers for my benefit, I have sinned. If I am rude to someone, I have sinned. These sins are not committed out of rebellion against God. They are signs of my own weakness. These are venial sins.

In Catholic thought, anything not done primarily for the glory of God is a venial sin. I may give money to the poor but be motivated by a desire to be congratulated. My would-be good deed in now a venial sin. I may lead a sinner to Christ, but if it is not primarily for the glory of God, it is venially sinful. Lacking maturity, everything good I do could be sinful. That is why I so desperately need the saving grace of my Lord. Blessed be God forever!

In your April article you stated that the doctrine of Purgatory originated at the Council of Trent. After considering my objections, you quoted Greg Litmer as evidence that " purgatory became an official Catholic dogma at the Council of Florence." That is closer to the truth by far, although Purgatory was declared a doctrine of the faith by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD , 751 years before the Council of Florence. I believe that it is important in a systematic exposition of Purgatory to properly explain the roles of Ecumenical Councils and what it means for a doctrine to become official.

First, we should look at some definitions in the Catechism: "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an Ecumenical Council. But there is never an Ecumenical Council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor." (CCC 884)

A doctrine becomes a dogma or an official teaching when it is proclaimed to be such either by an Ecumenical Council or by the Pope. The proclamation of a teaching as dogma should not be confused with its origin. The Church has taught the same faith for twenty centuries. That faith was "once and for all revealed to the holy ones" in the apostolic age. (Jude 3) There are many things that the Church has always taught which are not dogmas. Just one such example is the exclusion of women from the priesthood. The Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Holy Orders was for men only. In twenty centuries, this has never been officially proclaimed as a dogma. It is nonetheless a legitimate and infallible and unchanging part of Catholic truth. Until a teaching is proclaimed a dogma, theologians may honestly speculate in ways which are not in conjunction with Church teaching. Once a doctrine has been proclaimed a dogma, all who would question it may know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are heretics.

Or, as you put it, "for all practical purposes, the decree from Trent put an end to their objections, if they desired to be good Catholics." 

One example of a doctrine becoming a dogma is papal infallibility. Prior to the First Vatican Council, theologians could speculate that the pope might not be infallible. Despite that fact, the constant teaching of the Church, from St. Clement I in 90 AD through St. Leo the Great in the 400's through St. Innocent III in the 1200's through St. Pius V in the 1500's through Pius IX at the Vatican Council, holds that the pope is infallible when he teaches ex cathedra.  

Another example is the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is a favorite of modern anti-Catholics, since they can claim that a major Catholic doctrine was invented in 1950! In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption a dogma. Theologians were no longer allowed to speculate. However, no historian would consider claiming that 1950 was the origin of the Assumption.

So now, Mr. Spears, we come to Purgatory. Purgatory was declared a dogma at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. That teaching was reaffirmed at subsequent councils, especially the Council of Florence in 1438 and the Council of Trent in 1546, as well as this century's Second Vatican Council. In my June article, I showed that Purgatory has been believed since before the time of Christ. All of the examples I cited were from before Nicaea II. 

Two questions are now raised: 1) Should we reject the doctrine of Purgatory because it wasn't a dogma until 787; and 2) Why wasn't Purgatory declared a dogma until 787 if it is indeed part of the apostolic deposit of faith? 

In your June article you wrote: "The fact that many prominent Catholic theologians believed and promoted the doctrine of purgatory long before the Council of Trent does not mean it was an official dogma of Catholicism." I offer no objection to this.

Purgatory was not official dogma until Nicaea II. However, you followed it up in a manner to which I must object. "There were probably as many, if not more, and as prominent, Catholics who denied it." Mr. Spears, on what evidence do you base that affirmation? It seems to me that this is poor scholarship. At least you left that impression. What difference does it make, sir, to an intelligent and gracious discussion what you guess could have happened? I do not deny that there have been Catholics who did not believe in Purgatory. If there weren't such Catholics, as I'll attempt to demonstrate in a moment, it would never have been declared a dogma in the first place. Without controversy, there is no need to declare dogmas. But you suggest, based in your own words on your own guesswork, that "as many...and as prominent Catholics" did not teach Purgatory prior to Trent.

If you have evidence to support your hypothesis, I'd be happy to honestly and prayerfully consider it. As it stands, I deny in no uncertain terms that "as many, if not more, and as prominent Catholics" denied Purgatory. I ask you to look at the few authors I mentioned in my June article. Was there someone in the second century BC as prominent as Judas Maccabeus and the Maccabean author whom denied Purgatory? Who? Was there someone as prominent as St. Hermas, an author considered by many to be inspired, who denied Purgatory? Who? Was there any man as prominent as Origen who denied Purgatory? Who? Were there men more prominent that St. Ambrose and St. Gregory of Nyssa who denied Purgatory? Who? If it were possible to be more prominent than St. Augustine, was there such a man who denied Purgatory? Who? Who on earth was more prominent in the Catholic Church than Pope Gregory the Great and who denied Purgatory? You have offered your guess that such men "probably" existed as refutation of documented historical fact. That's not very sound argumentation, sir. So who denied Purgatory? I do not doubt that there have been occasional good Catholics prior to Nicaea II who have. But I'd like you to consider an excerpt from St. Francis De Sales addressing this very topic. St. Francis was Bishop of Geneva in the late 1500's. He single-handedly converted 72,000 Calvinists to the Catholic faith. I love reading the apologists of this era. They seem so confident in what they teach, while their opponents almost always become inconsistent. Consider, please, this excerpt from one of the saint's tracts:

So who, Mr. Spears, are your many and equally as prominent Catholics? They are no Catholics at all! They are the Arian and pseudo-gnostic heretics, a few heterodox Greeks, and the Reformers. Doctrines are only made dogmas when they are disputed. This is not their invention. St. Francis De Sales continued in his Purgatory tract to offer historical evidence in support of Purgatory. Remember, he does this early in the life of Protestantism, which he considers to be a heresy as vile as the ancient ones and as short-lived.

Arius, as I have said above, was the first to teach against Catholics that the prayers they offered for the dead were superstitious. He still has followers in our age in this point. Our Lord in his gospel furnishes us our rule of action on such occasions: If thy brother should offend thee...tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.' Let us hear then what the Church says on this matter, in Africa, at the 3rd Council of Carthage, and at the 4th; in Spain at the Council of Braga; in France, at the Council of Chalons, and at the 2nd Council of Orleans; in Germany at the Council of Worms; in Italy, at the 6^th Council under Symmachus; in Greece, as may be seen in their synods, collected by Martin of Braga. Andy by all these Councils you will see that the Church approves of prayer for the departed, and consequently of Purgatory. Afterwards, what she had defined in parts she defined in her general body at the Council of Lateran under Innocent III, at the Council of Florence in which all nations assisted, and lastly at the Council of Trent.

"But what more holy answer from the Church would one have than that which is contained in all her Masses? Examine the Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, which all the Oriental Christians still use; you will there see the commemoration of the dead, almost as it is seen in ours. If Peter Martyr, one of the learned men belonging to the adverse party, confesses, on the 3rd chapter of the 1st of Corinthians, that the whole Church has followed this opinion, I have no need to dwell on this proof. He says it has erred and failed--ah! Who would believe that! Who art thou that judgest the Church of God? If any one hear not the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. If the salt lose its savor wherewith shall it be salted; if the Church err by whom shall she be set right? If the Church, the faithful guardian of truth, lose the truth, by whom shall the truth be found? If Christ cast off the Church, whom will he receive--he who admits no one but through the Church? And if the Church can err, can you not also, oh Peter Martyr, fall into error? Without doubt! I will then rather believe that you have erred than the Church.  

It is a beautiful thing, and one full of consolation, to see the perfect correspondence which the present Church has with the ancient, particularly in belief. Let us mention what makes to our purpose concerning Purgatory. All the ancient Fathers have believed in it, and have testified that it was of the Apostolic faith. Here are the authors we have for it. Among the disciples of the apostles, St. Clement and St. Denis. Afterwards, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nanzianzen, Ephrem, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Boethius, Hilary--that is, all antiquity as far back as 1200 years ago, which was the time before which these Fathers lived.  

It would have been easy for me to bring forward their testimonies, which are accurately collected in the books of our Catholics-of Canisius in his Catechism, of Sanders On the Visible Monarchy, of Genebrard in his Chronology, of Bellarmine in his Controversy on Purgatory, of Stapleton in his Promptuary. But particularly let those who would see at length and faithfully quoted the passages of the ancient Fathers, take up the work of Canisius, revised by Buzaeus. Certainly, however, Calvin spares us this trouble, in Book III of his Institutions where he thus speaks: More than 1300 years ago it was received that prayers should be offered for the dead;' and afterwards he adds: But all, I confess, were dragged into error.' We need not then seek out the names and the localities of the ancient Fathers to prove Purgatory, since in reckoning their value Calvin puts them at zero. What likelihood that one single Calvin should be infallible and that all antiquity should have gone wrong! It is said that the ancient Fathers believed in Purgatory to accommodate themselves to the vulgar. A fine excuse! Was it not for the Fathers to correct the people's error if they saw them erring, not to keep it up and give in to it. This excuse then is but to accuse the ancients. But how shall we say the Fathers have not honestly believed in Purgatory, since Arius, as I have said before, was held to be a heretic because he denied it? It is a shame to see the audacity with which Calvin treats St. Augustine, because he prayed and got prayers for his mother St. Monica; and the only pretext he brings forward is that St. Augustine, in Book 21 of the de Civitate, seems to doubt about the fire of Purgatory. Now whether the purgation is made by fire or otherwise, whether or no the fire have the same qualities as that of Hell, still there ceases not to be a purgation and a Purgatory. He puts not then Purgatory in question but the quality of it; as will never be denied by those who will look how he speaks of it in chapters 16 and 24 of the same Book of the de Civitate, and in the work De Cura Pro Mortins Agends, and a thousand other places. See then how we are in the track of the holy and ancient Fathers, as to this article of Purgatory."

Does it trouble you that Purgatory was not dogma before Nicaea II in 787? Should that fact make us reject the doctrine? If so, we are in trouble. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not made dogma until the Council of Nicaea in 325. Will any dare to suggest that it was then invented? Will any be so blasphemous as to reject the Trinity because of this fact? Yes, sir, they will and they do. They are the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Muslims, and the Oneness Pentecostals, latter day Arians. The very canon of Scripture was not put together until the Council of Carthage in the late fourth century. This is a major stumbling block to proponents of sola scriptura. Will any dare reject the New Testament canon (we shall not yet address that of the Old) because of its late development as dogma? Yes, they will and they do. 

They are your mainline liberal Protestants who have embraced modernism. Mr. Spears, if no Council or Pope ever dogmatically defined Purgatory, it would still be the constant teaching of the Church. If you desire, I can provide extensive patristic evidence to further outweigh your guess to the contrary. The fact that it was not declared a dogma until Nicaea II, or that it was ever declared a dogma at all, is irrelevant to its veracity. So, in answer to question one, we should not reject Purgatory because it wasn't a dogma until 787. In answer to question two, Purgatory was not defined as a dogma until it became a controversy, just like the Trinity and the Canon of Scripture, as well as papal infallibility and the Assumption.

In your June article, you spent a substantial amount of time condemning the character of Father Johann Tetzel and of Pope Leo X. Since you devoted all of 11 paragraphs to tarnishing the reputation of two long dead priests in order to somehow prove Purgatory wrong, it is prudent to here answer two questions: 1) Are the accusations against Tetzel and Leo justified? and; 2) What is the relevance of these men's characters to an intelligent discussion of the doctrine of Purgatory?

That Tetzel acted inappropriately was conceded to you in my June article. Again, I affirm along with the entire Catholic Church that Tetzel's actions were out of line. You responded to this with these words: "To all Catholics, they weren't, Mr. Childers. He was condemned by Cardinal Cajetan and others, but by no means by all in the Catholic Hierarchy." Of course he was not condemned by all Catholics. How many sixteenth century Catholics outside of Germany do you think ever heard of Johann Tetzel? Do you honestly wish to insist that all of the hierarchy--every priest and bishop--should have complained about Tetzel? Do you condemn every single preacher in the Church of Christ who is wrong? Of course not. You shouldn't have to. Instead, you preach the truth, and let all other doctrines be measured by that truth.

It is my conclusion upon a study of the historical evidence that, while it is still and always will be conceded by all--including the Council of Trent--that Tetzel crossed the line, most of the attacks on him are unjustified. Historian O'Hare writes in his The Facts on Luther:

"Scholars today no longer believe the calumnies narrated against Tetzel's character. Luther was by no means speaking the truth when he asserted that Tetzel sold grace for money at the highest price.' A distinction must be made in Tetzel's teaching with regard to indulgences for the living and indulgences applicable to the dead. Tetzel was perfectly Catholic with regard to indulgences for the living according to (Tetzel's) theses, wherein we read, 'Indulgences do not pardon sins, but only remit the temporal punishment due to sin, when the sins have been sorrowfully confessed...Indulgences do not detract from the merits of Christ, but substitute for expiatory penalties the expiatory sufferings of Christ...It is a known fact that it is Christian, God fearing, pious people, and not lewd, idle ones, who are eager to gain an indulgence...For all indulgences are given first and foremost for the sake of God's glory. Consequently whosoever gives alms to procure an indulgence gives primarily for God's sake, seeing that no one can obtain an indulgence who has not attained to true repentance and the love of God.'"  

Many read Luther's theses, but few give Tetzel's equal time. In his theses, Father Tetzel gives a startling revelation about Luther: Luther never saw Tetzel. "For one who has never heard them, to declare in public Theses that the indulgence preachers employ scandalous language before the people, and take up more time in explaining indulgences than in expounding the Gospel, is to scatter lies picked up from others, to spread fictions in place of truths, and to show oneself light minded and credulous; and is to fall into mischievous error."

Tetzel's theses were a well-written and intelligent refutation of Luther. In his arrogant rebellion, Father Luther's reply was brief and personal: "I laugh at your words as I do at the braying of an ass. Instead of water I recommend to you the juice of the grape; and instead of fire, inhale, my friend, the smell of a roast goose. I am at Wittenburg. I, Doctor Martin Luther, make it known to all inquisitors of the faith, bullies and rocksplitters, that I enjoy here abundant hospitality, an open house, a well supplied table, and marked attention, thanks to the liberality of our duke and prince, the Elector of Saxony."

About Tetzel's error, historian Pastor writes: "There is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with an opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church."

Tetzel taught error. I conceded this, continue to concede it, and will always concede it. In your article, you argued that Pope Leo X should have censured Tetzel. Pope Leo's character is in many ways quite scandalous. I will not try to defend him in general.

However, in the particular matter of Tetzel, the pope does not deserve the blame. Historian E.R. Chamberlain tells the story of Leo X in his book, The Bad Popes. From the title you can see that Chamberlain is no Catholic apologist. According to Chamberlain, Leo desired to rebuild the then 1200 year old St. Peter's Basilica. 1200 years of wear and tear has its way of running even the greatest of buildings into the ground. Pope Leo X offered an indulgence to all who would donate to the construction. The building of a house of worship is, even in Church of Christ theology, an acceptable use of the Lord's money. Therefore, the donation is a valid object of almsgiving.

Pope Leo X gave the shady Archbishop Albert of Magdeburg the job of spreading the word about the new cause. It was Archbishop Albert who chose Johann Tetzel. The pope had no direct role in the commissioning of Tetzel. While the dispute between Father Luther and Father Tetzel was taking place in distant Germany, the Holy Father was narrowly avoiding death in what Chamberlain calls "the most dangerous conspiracy a pope ever had to face." Leo heard about Luther and Tetzel in the most vague of terms, and he wrote it off as a "monkish squabble." Only after the formation of Protestantism and its alliance with German political factions did the full story reach Rome.

Then, says Chamberlain: "Leo, in any case, even preferred to use persuasion in intellectual maters, and when at length he was forced to take notice of the squabble in Germany he reacted mildly. He agreed that the doctrine of indulgences had been grossly oversimplified, issued an edict condemning its abuse, and his nuncio Karl von Miltitz so savagely castigated the wretched Tetzel (again, Mr. Spears, we have here no friend of the Catholic Church writing) that the monk was thereafter a spent force." 

The first question asked if the accusations against Tetzel and Leo's character were justified? It is justified to accuse Tetzel of teaching error. It is not justified to consider him an overall corrupt man, or even a heretic. There were many flaws in Pope Leo's character. It is not true, however, that Leo commissioned Tetzel, supported his false teaching, or failed to censure him.

The second question is of greater importance. Anti-Catholics often resort to ad hominem attacks. Pope such and such had illegitimate children; Father so and so was greedy; Cardinal whoever did not condemn errors. The characters of Tetzel and Leo, Mr. Spears, prove nothing. Any logician will tell you that attacking individual people has no place in a discussion of ideas. You offered eleven paragraphs of attacks on Tetzel and Leo as evidence against my beliefs. Yes, Mr. Spears, it makes for a superb emotional appeal and it sounds powerful on paper, but it means nothing. Allow me to illustrate.

Suppose that a hypothetical preacher in the Church of Christ, we'll call him David Rakes, should turn out to be a real wretch of a man. David openly cheats on his wife and beats his children. He stays out all night boozing. He cusses like a sailor. He rents adult videos every night, and forces his wife to watch them with him. When Sunday comes around, he preaches that adult baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation. He declares to his congregation that instrumental music in worship is unacceptable and that one who has been divorced without scriptural justification cannot remarry. Using your ad hominem logic, Mr. Rakes' poor character disproves his doctrine. If that were the case, then you would have to admit that adult baptismal regeneration, a'cappela music, and the sanctity of marriage were not truth. This is an admission, Mr. Spears, which I would envision you as unwilling to make. Ad hominem argumentation like you and most anti-Catholics use is a gross logical fallacy. 

According to that logic, the "bad guys" are automatically wrong. The natural flip side, then, is that the "good guys" are naturally right. This is obviously not the case. I'm certain that you would never think of condemning the character of Alexander Campbell. Yet, according to ad hominem reasoning, Mr. Campbell's fine character proves the legitimacy of the American Christian Missionary Society. The good character of a Billy Graham would prove salvation by faith alone. Even in the Catholic Church, believe it or not, we're not all bad. The good characters of St. Francis of Assissi, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Mother Theresa, all of whom believe in Purgatory, would prove Purgatory at the very same time the poor characters of Leo and Tetzel disprove it.

The eleven paragraphs you spent tarnishing the reputations of these two priests, Mr. Spears, could have been better spent on more relevant matters. I hope in the future that you will leave ad hominem attacks out of your polemics.

One of the clearest Biblical discussions of Purgatory is in the Second Book of Maccabees. You and other Protestants include 2 Maccabees in the so-called Apocrypha, asserting that it is not really Scripture. In your article, you wrote: "It is my understanding that Jerome, a canonized saint of Catholicism, who was instrumental is producing the Latin Vulgate, rejected all Apocryphal books. Mr. Childers alleges that the Apocrypha 'was included in the Bible used by Christ, the apostles, and all Christians without exception until Father Luther and John Calvin threw it out.' Mr. Childers does not have his facts correct. The Jews have consistently rejected the apocr(y)phal books as non-canonical. Let Mr. Childers show some reputable and authentic Jewish source that endorses the Apocrypha."  

That is an interesting challenge, Mr. Spears, for two reasons. First of all, when I used modern Jews to support Purgatory, you cited Professor Shahak, who would assert that only parts of the Bible "are of real religious and ethical value," to argue that today's Jews are hopelessly superstitious. Now you want Jews?

Secondly, I find it very interesting that absent from your challenge was a request to provide a reputable and authentic early Christian source. There are abundant examples of those, Mr. Spears. Why are they not as relevant to you as "superstitious" and "degenerate" Jews?  

There are reputable and authentic pre-Christian Jewish sources which endorse the so called Apocrypha. Among them are the Septuagint translators, Flavius Josephus, and the Qumran community of Essene Jews. It is true that today's Jews, and the Jews of twenty previous centuries, have consistently rejected the Apocrypha. But why is that?

The Catholic Old Testament is identical to the Bible that was translated into Greek in the second century BC by order of Alexander the Great. This Bible is known as the Septuagint or Alexandrian Canon. It was the Bible used by Christ and the apostles, with no objection to the inclusion of the "extra" books.

In 90 AD, twenty years after the destruction of the Holy Temple of God, a Council of Jewish rabbis met at Jamnia. The Council of Jamnia attempted to recreate the Hebrew idenity of a broken people. They rejected all of the books of the Bible which were not originally written in Hebrew, establishing the Masoretic Text or Palestinian Canon. This same Council pronounced anathema upon Christianity, and specifically rejected some of the Christian gospels as Scripture. Meeting 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem and 60 years after the establishment of the Church, this Council had no authority whatsoever. For this reason, Christians continued to use the Alexandrian Canon. Some Church Fathers comment on the rejection of the Apocrypha by the Jews, but the Church as a whole included them in the first Christian Canon, established in the late 300's at the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. The Alexandrian Canon remained the Christian Canon until the time of the Protestant Reformers, who removed the books for doctrinal reasons.

St. Francis De Sales writes: "As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jews, you say nothing new or important. St. Augustine loudly exclaims: 'It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Maccabees as canonical, not the Jews.' Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books as the Mosaic may have had. There is not in either Scripture or reason to show for it...  

Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Maccabees the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed: Ecclesiasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free will and the honour of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions: You have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies. How will you ever cleanse yourselves from this sacrilege?" 

Mr. Spears, the Alexandrian Canon was accepted by all Jews until the Council of Jamnia, without authority, discarded it. The Alexandrian Canon was accepted by all Christians until Father Luther and John Calvin, with no authority, discarded it. Calvin decided he didn't want Purgatory, and then got rid of the Scripture which taught it. History shows that it happened in that order.

When considering the Apocrypha, which I accepted long before I dreamed of becoming Catholic based on this historical evidence, I always love to refer to a beautiful prophecy in the Book of Wisdom. This prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-20 is among the most accurate and the most detailed Messianic prophecies, and it exists in pre-Christian Qumran texts.

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.  

Mr. Spears, in your June article you challenged the way I have interpreted several passages of Sacred Scripture. In this section of the letter, I will attempt to defend my interpretations of those passages, and introduce a few more scriptural arguments. The section which will immediately follow will demonstrate the fallacy of having a battle of proof texts and interpretations.

The first scripture to consider is 1 John 5:16,17: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."

In my June article, I offered this as evidence for the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin. The passage, I claimed, teaches that certain sins do not kill the soul. Others do. This is the difference between mortal sins, those unto death, and venial sins, those not unto death.

This was your interpretation of the passage: "The difference is not that one sin is of less importance or consequence than the other. The difference is not the sin, but the sinner. The sinner who commits a sin unto death is the impenitent and hardened individual who will not seek pardon from the heavenly Father...The sinner who does not sin unto death is the one who will be brought back to acceptance with the Lord by repentance." I am somewhat taken aback at how matter of factly you state this. You leave the impression that your interpretation is not just your interpretation, but the clear and only possible meaning of the text. Is that so? Is your interpretation so painfully obvious that mine lacks any merit whatsoever?  

I do not argue that your interpretation is impossible. Certainly, the King James Version of the text allows for--but does not demand that--the difference is in sinners and not in sins. It is plausible that a sin unto death is a sin which is not repented prior to physical death, rather than a sin which causes spiritual death. Versions translated after the King James Version, however, make your interpretation less likely.

The Jerusalem Bible's "there is a sin that is death" and "not all sin is deadly" certainly imply that the passage is speaking of sin causing death, not death coming before repentance. The New American Bible's "there is such a thing as deadly sin" and "there is sin that is not deadly" also lend credence to my interpretation, while yours is difficult to support from those texts. Of course, you might object, those are Catholic Bibles! They've been tainted by the Whore of Babylon! That proves nothing!

The Protestant New American Standard Bible says: "If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death; There is sin leading to death; I do not say that he should Make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death." It is possible to look at "leading to" as "continuing unrepentant until," but it is much more plausible to take it at face value. The sin leads to the sinner's death.

The New International Version, which is about at non-Catholic as you can get, reads: "a sin that does not lead to death," "whose sin does not lead to death," "there is sin that leads to death," and "there is sin that does not lead to death." Again, we find that these non-Catholic translators saw in St. John's Epistle a sin which causes the death of the sinner.

It is in the non-Catholic Revised Standard and New Revised Standard versions that the passage is translated "mortal sin." So, Mr. Spears, why is it necessary that only your interpretation can be right, when your interpretation can only be supported firmly by the former official translation of the Episcopal Church? St. John says that there is sin unto death and sin not unto death. He does not say that there are sinners who die and sinners who repent. To me, it still seems that he is discussing mortal and venial sin.

The second passage we should consider is Hebrews 6:4-6: "For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit and tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt."

In this passage, you saw support for your denial of mortal and venial sin in 1 John. This passage does not deal with what you claimed was in 1 John. In this passage, a Christian who commits a total rejection of Christ can never return. In 1 John, you saw a sinner who did not repent, not a sin more serious than others. Yet in Hebrews, total apostasy is presented as a sin so much more severe than all others that it can never be repented. This passage does not portray someone who dies before repentance. It portrays a man whose sin causes the irrevocable death of his soul. This is truly a mortal sin! Hebrews 6, which has no obvious or logical connection with 1 John 5, can not serve to support your interpretation of the latter passage.

The next passage to consider is Isaiah 59:2: "Rather, it is your crimes that separate you from your God. It is your sins that make him hide his face."  

You present that passage as proof that all sin destroys the spiritual life and separates us from God. All sin, not just some so called mortal sin, will cause us to be cast into Hell. In context, God through Isaiah is explaining why Judah fell into captivity and her imminent glorious restoration, followed later by the even more glorious rise of the Catholic Church. This verse says that Judah's sin separated her, as a nation, from God. Therefore, he sent her into captivity. It does not state that all an individual's sins will send him to Hell, nor has it any relevant connection with 1 John 5.

The next passage to discuss is: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." (Romans 6:23)

You offer this as evidence that all sins lead to spiritual death. In context, St. Paul has been contrasting the former life of sin with the new life of grace. The life of sin led only to certain death, but the new life of grace will lead to eternal life. Surely, I grant that this proves nothing in my favor. It is plausible that all sins, in this passage, lead to death.

That is not a necessary conclusion, though, as the Apostle is not speaking of individual sins but a life of sin. In light of 1 John 5, it is clear that not all sins earn the wage of a life of sin.

The next passage to consider is Luke 16, the story of the rich man and Lazarus. To quote just a brief portion: "Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours."

Regarding this passage, you wrote: "When a rich man died and was in hell he was tormented in the flame. (Will Catholics say this was purgatory'?)...Abraham's response must present an enigma to Catholics wedded to their doctrine of purgatory.'...There is no passage way from the wicked or the righteous after death. It seems to me there would have to be such a passageway if those in purgatory' ever get out of it."

Dr. Scott Hahn argues that this is in fact about Purgatory. His argument is well thought out and plausible, but it is not necessarily the most common Catholic interpretation of the passage.

What does the great chasm tell us about Purgatory? Frankly, Mr. Spears, not a thing. This passage proves one of two things: 1) The rich man did not go to Purgatory; or, 2) People can not get out of Purgatory when they wish. If the rich man is in Hell, what difference does that make? How does his not going to Purgatory establish that there is no Purgatory? This passage, too, fails to disprove Purgatory.

The next passage to consider is 1 Corinthians 3:10ff. "According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." 

In this passage, I see Purgatory. By proclaiming the gospel to sinners, St. Paul laid a foundation, Jesus Christ, on which people were to build their lives. The Apostles refers to one such man who is building upon that foundation. After death, his works are being judged. He suffers, but is saved in that suffering. Putting this together takes little interpretation. Just reading the passage at face value, one finds all of these truths practically undeniable. The logical outcome is Purgatory.  

I am speechless at what you describe as the clear interpretation of the passage. Surely, you are welcome to interpret it however you please. You, I am sure, have much experience in preaching the gospel and in exegesis. Your interpretation, simply because it is your interpretation, has great value because of your experience. But it is far from the clear meaning of the text. You claim that the gold, silver, precious stones, etc. are really "those who were converted as a result of the teacher's work and God's increase." And this is clear? This is not in any way implied in the text, sir.

Allowing you this interpretation, you still have not disproved Purgatory. If the gold and silver are converts, then we are judged according to how many converts we made. In other words, if we have lived up to our evangelistic potential, we are rewarded. If we have not done our best, we are guilty of sin. You say that there is no sin that won't send us to Hell. Yet, in this passage, the person guilty of the sin of not winning his fair share of converts is still saved! And how? By fire!

You appeal to other scriptures to show that Christians undergo fiery trials in life. These trials make us grow in character. That's called redemptive suffering. This was all discussed in the first section of the letter. I do not deny that Christians undergo fiery trials during life. I do deny, however, that 1 Corinthians is talking about one of them. Here, St. Paul is, dare I say, clearly speaking of an event which takes place after death.

You state that "the passage does not discuss punishing a man or purging him of his sins." Later, you contradict yourself with these words: "Those of strong character and conviction will only be purified and strengthened by persecution." The text says, again clearly, that the man is saved because of the fire. You say the fire is really the destruction of "converts who fell away as a result of temptations and trials." In a weak and unconvincing way, that does explain suffering loss, but it does not explain being saved by fire. If the fire is the destruction of your failed converts, how on earth are you saved by that? Do we wish for our converts to fall away and be damned, that we may be "saved, but only as through (the) fire" of their tormented souls? God forbid! Your interpretation seems untenable.

The next passage to consider is Matthew 5:20-30. The entire context of the passage is a discourse on the effects of this life on the afterlife. Your interpretation of Christ's words about prison as a purely practical command is indeed very plausible. Many Catholics share it, and see no Purgatory in this passage. I believe that since it falls in the midst of a dissertation on the afterlife, with warnings of eternal punishment both before and after it, it too is discussing the afterlife. That is simply my opinion, sir, and I will not challenge you for not sharing it. 

The next passage to consider is 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?"  

The early Church had a mysterious practice, quickly abandoned, of baptizing for the dead. Though this rite is celebrated by none today save the Mormons, it is given Biblical approval and used as a God-breathed proof of the resurrection of the dead. If there is no Purgatory, Mr. Spears, why did St. Paul's Corinthian church baptize for the dead?

Now, we should consider 1 Peter 3:18,19: "For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient in the days of Noah."

This passage has Christ preaching to imprisoned spirits. It is not a condemnation or a pronouncing of sentence, but "preaching." What is the purpose of preaching, if not to effect a change in the listener? If a change can be effected in an imprisoned spirit, that spirit is in Purgatory.

Another Biblical prayer for the departed is in Sirach 7:33: "Be generous to all the living, and withhold not your kindness from the dead."  

St. Francis De Sales writes: "if there are some sins that can be pardoned in the other world it is neither in Hell nor in Heaven, therefore it is in Purgatory. Now, that there are sins which are pardoned in the other world we prove, firstly, by the passage of St. Matthew in chap. xii, where our Lord says that there is a sin which can not be forgiven either in this world or in the next:' therefore there are sins which can be forgiven in the other world...

St. Paul to the Philippians (ii) says these words: That in the name of Jesus every knee may bow. Of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth (infernorum). In heaven we find the saints on their knees, bending them at the name of the Redeemer. On earth, we find many such in the militant Church, but in Hell where shall we find any of them? David despairs of finding any when he says: Who shall confess thee in Hell?' (Ps. vi) So Ezechias in Isaias (xxxviii): For neither shall Hell confess thee.' To which that also ought to be referred which David sings elsewhere (xlix. 16): But to the sinner God hath said, Why dost thou declare my justice and take my covenant in thy mouth?' For if God will receive no praise from the obstinate sinner, how should he permit the wretched damned to undertake this holy office."

I believe that my interpretation of scripture, Mr. Spears, is valid. Not infallible, but valid nonetheless. 

We have come now to what is certainly the most fundamental issue in any debate of Catholic doctrine. In the last few pages, I have responded to your scriptural interpretations with scriptural interpretations of my own. What authority do my interpretations carry? None! And yours, sir? None! All Protestants claim to follow the Bible alone. The Church of Christ makes one of the most valiant efforts to do so. However, the struggle is futile. Nobody can successfully use the Bible as their only authority. I admit that those are strong words, but please let me illustrate.

One of the Scriptures about which we've been arguing is 1 Corinthians 3. 1 Corinthians 3 says that on the Day, a man's work will be burned up and he will be saved as through fire. I have asserted that this text is talking about Purgatory. Does the text say this? No. You have asserted that the text is talking about the converts a man has won during his life. Does the text say this?  

No. 

What does this text or any text mean? Many argue that we should let the text speak for itself. Sola scriptura! Let the scriptures interpret themselves. This doesn't happen, Mr. Spears. The Scriptures require interpretation. In the end, you have to rely upon, not the Bible alone, but your own judgment as the final authority in religious matters. To the private interpreter of scripture, you end up granting an authority that you would deny only to the pope. All the while, St. Peter tells us that "there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

When it all boils down, Mr. Spears, our interpretations of scripture have no more authority than we do. Yet, in any attempt to follow the Bible alone, we find ourselves relying on our authority-less interpretations as the final authority. This is quite a dilemma. This is also why there are 20,000+ Protestant denominations and independent churches. Would you assert that all these "denominational" folks are dishonest and self-serving in their interpretations of the clear and perspicuous scriptures, while those in the Church of Christ are totally honest and take the Bible at face value? Or, as is more likely, could it be possible that people come to different conclusions about the scriptures because they're only human? We're all fallible and sinful people. We can all be wrong--even the Church of Christ.  

Why would God do that to us? Why would he leave a Word to guide us, but give us as our only final authority our own fallible interpretations? Does this not make God responsible for all the division that exists in Christianity today? If God did indeed desire for us to follow the Bible alone, that conclusion would be accurate.

I would argue, Mr. Spears, that God did not leave us with a book to fallibly interpret for our final authority. Instead, he left us a Church that would stand forever as "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

The prophecies of scripture make it abundantly clear that God wished for the Church to exist as his Covenant family and kingdom, and that it would stand forever. I'll cite just a few of those prophecies. Consider Isaiah 9:5ff: "For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing it and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this." 

Consider Daniel 2, where the Prophet speaks of four coming kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome: "In the lifetime of those (Roman) kings, the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever." 

God's Holy Church, founded by Christ through the apostles, has continued in unbroken succession since the first century. The common Church of Christ view is that the Church of Christ fell away and turned into the Catholic Church around the time of St. Constantine the Great in 312 AD. In fact, Mr. Needham wrote about that in his June article. But a reading of the Christian authors of the first centuries shows that it was a truly Catholic Church, in both faith and organization, from the very beginning.

The Church preserves the faith uncorrupted. It can not teach error, nor can it fall away.

God swore this in the time of Isaiah. Through Isaiah, the Lord promised that his Word would stand forever, but he said nothing of a book. Rather, his Word will always remain uncorrupted on the lips and hearts of his people.  

Isaiah 59:19ff: "Those in the west shall fear the name of the Lord and those in the east, his glory. For it shall come like a pent up river which the breath of the Lord drives on. He shall come to Zion a Redeemer to those of Jacob who turn from sin, says the Lord. This is the Covenant with them which I myself have made, says the Lord: My Spirit which is upon you and my Words that I have put into your mouth shall never leave your mouth nor the mouths of your children nor the mouths of your children's children from now on and forever, says the Lord. Rise up in splendor! Your light has come! The glory of the Lord shines upon you." 

God has sworn an oath, Mr. Spears, that the Covenant family and kingdom, the Church, will neither cease to proclaim the truth or fall away. The Church, led by the successors of the apostles in communion with the successor of St. Peter, can not and will not ever teach error or fall away. Jesus said to Simon Bar Jonah, "You are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

The Church of Christ, when faced with the irrefutable evidence of St. Clement I and St. Ignatius of Antioch that the only Church at the end of the first century was the Roman Catholic Church, would have the gates of Hell prevail against the Church in less than a century. The Church of Christ would have the increase of God's Kingdom cease from 100 AD to 1830. The Church of Christ would have the God's Covenant nation fall into corruption, not rise up in splendor. The Church of Christ would have the true Church delivered up to pagan Roman corruptions, rather than have pagan Rome delivered up to the Church. And in all this inadvertent blasphemy, the Church of Christ is not alone. Restoration theories abound. Every sect which arose after the Catholic Church claims to have been the original Church and been corrupted into the Catholic Church: the Church of Christ, Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, the New Age, Seventh Day Adventism, ad nauseam. 

How do we know if our interpretations of the Scripture are valid? After all, all heretics use the Scripture to prove their peculiar beliefs, whether it be Arians, Gnostics, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, you could argue with St. Peter that the interpretations of the "ignorant and unstable" heretics are false because they "distort (the Scriptures) to their own destruction." This is, however, just begging the question. If one man's private interpretation is a distortion, then there must be some kind of standard.

When someone asks me if I understand the Bible, I answer along with the Ethiopian Eunuch: "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" It was St. Philip who instructed the Ethiopian about Jesus Christ and the faith of the apostolic Church. It is the same apostolic Church which instructs us today about the Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  

I would like to consider for a moment an idea which I brought up in the unpublished portion of my article. When the Reformers rejected Purgatory, they did not do so because it was absent from Scripture. They believed that 1 Corinthians and 2 Maccabees taught Purgatory. They rejected it, rather, because it was inconsistent with sola fide, which you do not accept.

Consider this excerpt from "The Facts on Roman Catholicism" by John Ankerberg. Bear in mind that this is the argument against Purgatory in its entirety, with no mention at all of Purgatory being absent from Scripture: 

Now, Mr. Spears, please consider how Mr. James G. McCarthy, director of Good News For Catholics, Inc., refutes Purgatory in his book The Gospel According to Rome, which is offered by the Florida College Bookstore:

"Roman Catholicism has further distorted the gospel by redefining the biblical means of justification, salvation, grace, and even sin. Concepts foreign to the Bible have been added to the gospel: sanctifying grace, seven sacraments, venial sin, temporal punishment, purgatory, acts of penance, indulgences, etc. The Church has set up extensive requirements for adults seeking justification and made salvation into a merit system of sacraments and good works. Even grace and eternal life have become merited rewards." 

Mr. Spears, I know it is difficult to even imagine that there might be a Purgatory. It certainly was for me. However, realizing that Purgatory was indeed taught in Scripture and rejected only because it was inconsistent with sola fide led me to accept its veracity before I was even convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith. Purgatory would fit so beautifully into the Church of Christ's concept of salvation. Those who believe, are baptized, and persevere in the faith will be saved. But there's still that problem of nothing impure entering into the presence of God. We know that those who persevere and, contrary to popular Protestant belief, only those who persevere, will be saved. Therefore, there must be purification offered after death for the saved. What an awesome gift of our gracious God!

My dear brother in Christ, again I thank you for taking the time to consider my case for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. I recognize that your faith requires you to label me an apostate and a non-Christian. I respect your position, for it is one I also held. Let me assure you, however, that I believe with all my heart that I have not left the Lord's fold. Rather, I have entered into it more fully and more profoundly. I stand in a true and direct communion with twenty centuries of apostles, prophets, martyrs, doctors, virgins, confessors, saints, and fellow Christians. Here I stand, my brother. I can do no other.

The Catholic Church is a Christian Church. Indeed, it is the Christian Church. The Catholic faith is a Christian faith. Indeed, it is the Christian faith. We respect you as a separated brother in Christ, and pray for the day when together we may approach the altar of God Most High. "Catholicism's God," Mr. Spears, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the one and only God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is your God, too, sir.  

And to his unending and divine mercy, I commend you in Christian love.

Jeff Childers

June 24, 1998
Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Return to Catholicsource main page