Transcript

But what I want to do right now as we pick back up is continue looking at our evidence from the Bible for the existence of purgatory.

Our first set of data showed that it is at least biblically reasonable for the existence of purgatory in light of the fact that a soul can die with defilement but yet still be in God's friendship, namely the guilt of venial sin, a sin not unto death, as St. John testified to in 1 John 5:16-17. Knowing that nothing of defilement can enter into the glory of Heaven, that defilement on the saved soul has to be taken care of.

As we mentioned, whether it happens instantaneously at the judgment seat of Christ or it is a process, we simply do not know; the Church has not defined that.

Now, before we move to the second set of data, another way to see how it’s at least biblically reasonable is very briefly pondering the Jewish understanding of the existence of Sheol, what we normally refer to as Sheol, coming from the Hebrew, or Hades, coming from the Greek, simply meaning the abode of the dead.

In the abode of the dead, you had souls experiencing eternal torment and punishment, namely hell.

But in that same abode, in the afterlife, you also had, before the ascension of Christ, souls existing in a state of natural bliss, in a state of waiting anticipation for Heaven, namely the righteous souls of the Old Testament.

According to our tradition, Adam and Eve would have repented, and in the Eastern part of the Church, they are referred to as Saint Adam and Saint Eve.

But you know, Abraham, Moses, and David, and all those Old Testament heroes, when they died, they died in friendship with God and faith, in anticipation of the coming Messiah.

However, they were not existing in the beatific vision, precisely because the beatific vision was closed off to humanity due to the original sin of Adam and Eve.

So, the righteous souls of the Old Testament, witnessed to by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews chapter 11, give us a litany of those Old Testament heroes.

They were in a state of existence in the afterlife, neither Heaven nor Hell.

Although the Church would not say that is purgatory—the Church wouldn't go that far—nevertheless, it does show the reasonableness of the existence of purgatory.

It can serve as a building block in dialoguing with our Protestant brothers and sisters and saying, Look, here’s a state of existence in the afterlife that’s neither Heaven nor Hell, a state of waiting in anticipation very similar to our understanding of purgatory.

So it is at least biblically reasonable.

Now we move to our second set of data from the Bible, and that is there are three biblical passages that I want us to reflect upon that seem to indicate a purifying state of existence after death, a purifying state of existence for a soul that’s saved, even after death.

Hence, we call that final purification purgatory.

These are the biblical passages that the Church, in her tradition, in the pope's writings, and in the early Church Fathers, have always referred to as a biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory.

Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its section on purgatory (paragraphs 1030 to 1032), cites these biblical passages, in particular 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 and Matthew 12:32. So these passages have been used by the Church in her magisterial teaching.

So let's take a look at these passages and see what we can extract from them and if they reveal purgatory to us.

Our first and most important text is 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. Here’s what St. Paul writes: For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become manifest, for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

Verse 14: If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Now I have five steps of exegesis here, five steps we can walk through to sort of explain how this passage is revealing purgatory as understood and taught by the Catholic Church.

Step one: Paul is referring to a purgation of sins, first and foremost.

How do we know?

Well, I think our clue is the image of the wood, hay, and straw being burned up in the fire.

There is a purging of bad works.

How do we know this refers to bad works?

Well, it’s obvious from the text that the gold, precious stones, and silver represent the good works compared to the wood, hay, and straw, which represent the bad works.

Recall how St. Paul says the fire will test the works to see of what sort or what kind they will be.

Well, what’s going to survive the purifying fire?

The gold, silver, and precious stones—those are good kinds of work.

What will not survive the purifying fire?

What will be burned up?

The wood, the hay, and the straw.

Throughout our tradition, the wood, the hay, and the straw are seen as images representing the lesser faults, those venial sins in the soul.

So there is indeed a purgation of sins that St. Paul is referring to here.

Second step: The purgation of sins, I would argue, occurs after death.

St. Paul is not referring to a purgation of sins, a fire of this life, a trial or a testing of this life to see of what sort or what type of work it is, but a fire or a purification in the afterlife, after death.

Namely, it’s the day of judgment, which according to Hebrews 9:27, comes after death.

The author of Hebrews writes, It is appointed for every man to die once, then the judgment.

What are our clues that St. Paul is referring to the day of judgment here?

That is, after death, after the soul leaves this life.

Well, the first clue is St. Paul’s usage of the day.

Recall how St. Paul mentioned that the day will disclose what sort of works these are.

Now, that Greek word for the day is hemera, and St. Paul uses that particular Greek word as opposed to eight other Greek words for day.

The significance of hemera, the day, is used elsewhere in the Bible in reference to the day of judgment.

For example, in Matthew 12:36, Jesus, in talking about the day of judgment, states that we will be judged according to every word that we say.

Right?

The day of judgment—there is hemera.

So when St. Paul talks about the day that will disclose it, it can be argued that he’s referring to the day of judgment, standing before the judgment seat of Christ, which, remember, comes after death.

The second clue that St. Paul is talking about the day of judgment is the motif of receiving recompense for works or deeds.

Notice how he says that for those good works, you’re going to receive a reward, and for those bad works—wood, hay, straw—burned up in the fire, you’re going to suffer loss.

There’s this motif of receiving recompense for what is done, both good and bad.

That same motif or theme is found elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings, specifically in 2 Corinthians 5:10, in reference to standing before the judgment seat of Christ.

When St. Paul says we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we will receive a reward according to what we have done in the body, whether good or evil.

So, St. Paul, elsewhere, when he's talking about receiving recompense for deeds, is referring to the judgment seat of Christ.

It's the day of judgment; it wouldn't necessarily be the final judgment, as it could also be the particular judgment.

St. Paul is writing about this same motif here in 1 Corinthians 3, receiving recompense for deeds, whether good or bad.

So apparently, the day that he’s talking about is the day of judgment, which, according to Hebrews 9:27, once again comes when?

After death.

So notice so far: St. Paul is discussing a purgation of sins, a purification of the soul that is in the afterlife, that’s after death.

Now this leads us to step three: It can't be Heaven.

Sorry about the PowerPoint; it messed up there.

It can't be Heaven.

Why?

Because there are sins present on the soul, right?

The soul that’s going through the final purification has the guilt of venial sin, represented by the wood, hay, and straw.

Can sin exist in Heaven?

No. So, if the soul has sin on it, it can't be Heaven.

Furthermore, it can't be Heaven because the soul is suffering loss.

Is there any suffering in Heaven?

Absolutely not.

Thank God!

So it can't be Heaven for those reasons.

This leads us to step four of our exegesis: It can't be hell either.

Why can't it be hell?

Because, if you remember, what does St. Paul say?

He shall be saved, though as through fire.

He shall be saved.

The Greek word there for saved is sozo, which many theologians affirm is a particular Greek word used in the New Testament in reference to salvation, like in reference to God—not merely an earthly salvation, such as being saved from my earthly enemies or being saved from some sort of political oppression.

It refers to salvation in relation to one's standing before God.

So, we have a purgation of sins, possibly at the day of judgment in the afterlife, that's neither Heaven nor hell.

Why can't it be hell if they’re being saved?

Because you can't be saved from hell, right?

Contrary to what some theologians and some Christian communities believe, hell, my dear friends, is everlasting.

The souls in hell cannot get out of hell.

So here we have a purification after death of a saved soul, right?

It’s going to Heaven, but it’s not Heaven and it’s not hell.

What is it?

We call it purgatory, right?

Interesting, huh?

Now, there’s a funny little story.

One of my mentors, Tim Staples, a nationally known apologist and evangelist, and a good friend of mine, tells this story in his talks on purgatory about how he was debating a Protestant pastor one time on a radio show.

They were talking about purgatory, and Mr. Staples led this Protestant pastor through these same steps of exegesis.

By the way, he got it from St. Augustine.

Augustine does the same thing when he’s arguing for the biblical evidence of purgatory.

Okay?

The same steps of exegesis: final purification in the afterlife; can’t be Heaven, can’t be hell.

So, Mr. Staples led the Protestant pastor through this exegesis, and they went to a break.

Tim Staples tells the story about how the Protestant pastor leans over and says, You know, Tim, something to this extent: I see your reasoning.

It’s a final purification in the afterlife; it can’t be Heaven; it can’t be hell.

But I’m just not ready to call it purgatory.

To which Mr. Staples replies something to the extent of, Brother, and Mr. Staples was a former Baptist and Pentecostal Assemblies of God.

He said, Brother, you can call a rose by any name you want, but a rose is still a rose.

You can call it whatever you want, but it’s still purgatory as defined and understood by the Catholic Church: a final purification of those souls going to Heaven, right?

That’s neither Heaven nor hell, a state of existence in the afterlife neither Heaven nor hell, where the saved soul, the elect, experiences a final purification of life, the guilt of lesser faults, the defilement that’s on the soul, but yet the soul is still in friendship with God.

St. Paul teaches us the reality of purgatory here in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. So, step five: I think we can conclude St. Paul is speaking about a state of existence in the afterlife that is neither Heaven nor hell, where the soul experiences a purification of defilement.

Now, that’s the essential passage.

Let’s move on to a couple more.

We come to Matthew chapter 5, verses 25 through 26, and many apologists and theologians will look to this passage as a biblical example for the reality of purgatory.

Here’s what Jesus says: Make friends quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.

Surely, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

So, the question is, how does this passage reveal the Catholic understanding or the reality of purgatory?

Well, I have four steps of exegesis here.

The first step is that Jesus emphasizes the principle of repayment, which would seem to correspond with the Catholic Church's teaching about the temporal punishment due for sin, right?

Making reparation, satisfying for, and making atonement for that temporal punishment, or making the payment that man can pay.

Obviously, only God can pay for the eternal price, right?

The infinite gap.

Only God can cross the infinite chasm and wipe away the eternal consequence of sin.

But because man did something in sin, man must do something to repair for that sin.

Jesus does what man can’t, but man does what he can.

That’s where the temporal punishment comes in—paying back for sin.

So, Jesus seems to be emphasizing this principle of repayment for sin, which would coincide with the Catholic idea of temporal punishment.

Step two, and the clue there obviously is the prison.

You're in prison; it’s a holding, it’s a detaining place.

You’re paying back by paying the last penny.

Now, step two: The punishment that Jesus speaks of here is not eternal but temporary in nature.

How so?

What are our clues?

Number one: As the English translation says, the penny—in Greek, it’s kondrantes.

Kondrantes, as you see there on your handout, is spelled K-O-D-R-A-N-T-E-S. Now, from what I understand, a kondrantes is literally worth less than 2% of a denarius, which was a day's wage for the agricultural laborer in ancient times—worth less than 2%. Of a day's wage.

So this price to pay is something that is payable; it’s feasible, it’s doable.

It’s not like the other parables where Jesus speaks of detainment and prison and paying back, where the amounts are so extraordinary that you cannot even accrue them in your lifetime, right?

That would indicate eternal punishment.

But this price to pay is doable; it is feasible.

The second clue, as one apologist points out, Jimmy Akin, a senior apologist for Catholic Answers in San Diego, emphasizes the fact that the sin Jesus is talking about here seems to be primarily a sin against a human being.

If you sin against your brother, so he follows this line of reasoning: by sinning against a finite being, the repayment or the punishment for that sin will be finite.

You’re supposed to sin against the infinite being, God, requiring infinite value, right?

Thus, infinite eternal punishment.

But this is finite sin against a finite being, indicating finite punishment.

So if it’s a finite punishment, then that would indicate that it’s payable, right?

You can repay the price for the punishment, and thus for the sin you should say, and get out of the prison that Jesus is speaking of.

So we have the principle of repayment for sin, we have detainment—that is, a holding place—and then an amount that is payable, indicating a temporary punishment, not eternal.

Step three: I would argue that the punishment Jesus is speaking of here is, once again, as we did in 1 Corinthians 3, after death—a punishment or a prison not in this life, but in the afterlife.

How so?

Well, our first clue is the Greek word that’s used for prison.

Interestingly enough, the Greek word used for prison here is phouleke, which is the same Greek word that St. Peter uses in reference to Jesus going down to preach to the spirits in prison when he descends into the abode of the dead to preach to those righteous souls of the Old Testament in 1 Peter 3:18-19, as well as in 1 Peter 4:19 when St. Peter talks about Jesus going to preach to the spirits in prison.

The Greek word there is phouleke.

So the fact that phouleke is used here in Jesus' teaching seems to indicate this is some sort of holding place, right, for souls in the afterlife.

The second clue that Jesus is referring to the afterlife is the context—the context in which Jesus gives us this teaching about a prison and repaying for sin, right?

This temporal punishment is in the context of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, which is all about the afterlife.

Think about it: in Matthew 5, verses 3-12, what does Jesus teach us about?

The Beatitudes.

What is the ultimate goal of the Beatitudes?

The Kingdom of Heaven.

So He’s talking about things of the nature of salvation, right?

In verse 20, Jesus talks about your righteousness needing to exceed that of the Pharisees in order to go to Heaven, so He’s discussing salvation.

In verse 22, He speaks of going to hell for being angry at your brother.

In verses 27-28, what is Jesus talking about?

If any man lusts after a woman, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart, right?

So He’s talking about things of eternal importance.

Then in chapter 6, verses 1 and 19, Jesus talks about the treasures of Heaven that the Father has in store for us.

So all of the context of this teaching from Jesus on repaying and paying for our punishment in the prison is within the context of salvation—Heaven, hell, things of eternal importance, things of the afterlife.

And right smack dab in the middle is this teaching about a prison—phouleke—and repaying, paying the penny for our sin.

So it would seem to indicate that Jesus is talking about a punishment that is not of this life but in the afterlife, right?

So we look at this, we gather the information, and we say, Hmm, Jesus is talking about punishment, a form of temporal punishment, the principle of repayment, paying for one’s sin.

And that payment for sin is not eternal, but it’s temporary—it's a temporary payment for sin that seems to be in the afterlife.

It can’t be Heaven, right?

Because there’s no sin in Heaven, and Heaven is not a prison; it’s not a holding place waiting to go somewhere else.

And it can’t be hell because, guess what?

You ain't getting out of hell.

You aren't going to be able to pay the price to get out of hell.

So what is Jesus referring to?

Many theologians and many apologists will suggest that Jesus is referring to the existence of purgatory here—a state of existence in the afterlife where a soul is finally purified, making reparation for sins that have already been forgiven but nevertheless, on their way to Heaven, getting out of the holding place eventually.

Finally, we come to Matthew 12, verse 32. We are all familiar with this particular text where Jesus says, And whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come.

So, any man who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, in the late 6th century, actually referred to this biblical passage as support for the existence of purgatory.

He, along with many other theologians throughout the centuries of Christianity, has argued this in a kind of four-step process.

Number one: The age that Jesus was referring to, “the age to come,” can be referred to or considered as the afterlife because the Greek word for age here is aeon, which is used elsewhere in Scripture in reference to after death, the afterlife, the age to come, right?

So He's referring to the afterlife.

Step two: It can't be Heaven.

Why?

Because notice the implication of Jesus' statement.

The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come.

Remember, Jesus said the sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come.

Well, wait a minute, Jesus.

Are there some sins that can be forgiven?

Jesus' statement hints at the possibility of some sins—not the sin against the Holy Spirit, but some sins can be forgiven.

Now, what is the sin against the Holy Spirit?

That’s another question for another time.

Let’s just move forward: There are some sins that can be forgiven in the afterlife.

So it can't be Heaven because no soul with sins in the afterlife is going to be existing in Heaven.

Step three: It can't be hell, right?

Because Jesus implies that the sin is going to be what?

Forgiven.

So it can’t be hell.

Therefore, step four: What is it?

I think it’s purgatory, right?

As Pope St. Gregory the Great affirmed, as well as many theologians.

So, in light of these biblical passages, we can see that the Bible supports this; the Bible teaches it.

The Catholic Church has always taught this reality in the afterlife, where a saved soul—the elect—are finally purified of any guilt of venial sin that remains or any temporal punishment due for sin that is remaining.

So 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Matthew 5:25-26, and Matthew 12:32 are three essential biblical texts.

Now, our third set of data for the biblical evidence for purgatory is the Jewish and Christian practice of praying for the dead, right?

And this relates to a separate question that’s often asked: Where in the Bible does it say to pray for the dead?

Right?

So that question is intrinsically related and associated with the question of purgatory.

But think about it: if you’re praying for the dead, right?

If you’re praying that your dead loved ones who have deceased will be purified, what does that imply?

That they’re neither in Heaven nor in hell, because your prayers for the souls in Heaven are not going to be effectual.

There’s no point in praying for them; it’s actually contrary to reason to pray for the souls in Heaven because they don't need your prayers.

You can't pray for the souls in hell because they aren’t getting out.

And so, if we can prove or show that both Jews and Christians pray for the dead, then that would imply their understanding of what we call purgatory—a state of existence in the afterlife where a saved soul is purified.

Let’s start with the Jewish practice.

This comes from 2 Maccabees chapter 12, verses 40 and 44 through 45 in particular.

Obviously, there’s a whole context there, but I’m just going to highlight verses 40 and 44 through 45. And this recounts how Judas Maccabeus, after the major battle driving out Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who was corrupting Jerusalem by putting up pagan idols within the Jerusalem Temple, and Judas Maccabeus and a group of Jewish brethren drive him out, right?

They reclaim the Temple, and then you have the re-consecration of the Temple, etc. Within that context, here’s what we read: Verse 40: Then under the tunic of every one of the dead, they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which would be something akin to modern-day superstitions, like a baseball player carrying a rabbit's foot in his back pocket or wearing something for superstitious reasons.

Idols of Jamnia—superstitious stuff, right?

Verse 44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

Verse 45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

Therefore, he made atonement for the dead that they might be delivered from their sin.

So here in this Jewish text, we have Jewish people, Judas Maccabeus in particular, praying for his deceased comrades, his deceased soldiers, in order that they may be what?

Delivered from sin.

He understands that the sin they committed was a lesser fault—a sin, nevertheless, but not serious enough to send them to hell, because he wouldn’t be praying for them if that were the case.

So he understands that these souls could be existing in the afterlife and still not be delivered from their sins, so he prays for them.

Now, our Protestant brothers and sisters may say, Oh, but that's Carlo—that's 2 Maccabees.

My friend, I ain’t got that one in my Bible!

You have it in yours, but it ain’t in mine, which is true.

2 Maccabees is not in our Protestant brothers’ and sisters’ Bibles, along with six other books that Martin Luther rejected at the advent of the Protestant Reformation that had been there for 1,500 years.

Nevertheless, it is not in the Bible of our Protestant friends, so they will reject this passage and say, Yep, not worthy of consideration.

However, even though they may not accept it as inspired—which, of course, is unfortunate because it is inspired word of God—they must still acknowledge it as historical testimony of the practice and belief of the Jews right around 1 BC in the first century of Judaism.

So it does serve as a historical witness of what Jews believed.

They believed in a state of existence in the afterlife where souls could be purified from the guilt of sin.

So what about the Christian Church?

Is there any evidence in the New Testament?

Well, it might not be as explicit as 2 Maccabees 12, but I do think we find it in 1 Timothy 1:16-18. Here’s what St. Paul writes.

Notice that St. Paul says—I have three steps of exegesis here.

Number one: The biblical context implies that Onesiphorus, or Onesiphorus, however you want to pronounce him, is a dead guy.

Folks, Onesiphorus—the context implies that Onesiphorus is dead at the time Paul was penning the letter.

What is our clue?

Well, notice he says the household of Onesiphorus, right?

Now, this is 2 Timothy 1. If you go to 2 Timothy 4:19, which is the context, it further affirms what I’m trying to suggest.

Here’s what he writes in 2 Timothy 4:19: Salute Prisca, Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.

Notice he salutes Prisca and Aquila as individual persons.

That’s right.

But notice he refers to the household of Onesiphorus, and then right after that, in verse 20, St. Paul goes to listing individuals again: Erastus remained at Corinth; Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

So you have an individual, an individual, the household of Onesiphorus, an individual, and another individual.

Isn’t that interesting in light of the context?

This implies that Onesiphorus is dead, folks.

That’s why he’s referring to the household of Onesiphorus.

So our first step: the biblical context suggests that Onesiphorus was dead at the time Paul is penning the letter.

Step two: What does he pray?

He prays that Onesiphorus would find mercy from the Lord on that day.

Now, as we already looked at earlier in other passages of St. Paul, what does the day refer to?

The day of judgment, folks, which comes, once again, according to Hebrews 9:27, after death.

So we put these details together: St. Paul is praying that Onesiphorus, who’s a dead guy, would find mercy from the Lord on the day of judgment.

Whether he’s referring to the general judgment or the particular judgment doesn’t really matter.

A soul receiving the mercy of God after life?

Hmm, sounds a lot like praying for the dead, which implies the existence of a final purification of the elect in the afterlife.

So many have looked to 2 Timothy 1:18-19 and 2 Peter 4:19-20, where St. Paul prays for the dead.

We have a Jewish testimony and a Christian testimony to this practice of praying for the dead—something that we as Catholics have been doing for the past 2,000 years, right?

Okay, now, and still to this day—did you say the Jews?

Yeah, indeed, indeed, indeed, yes!

This is something that is still performed.

What did you say?

Pray for the Father?

All right, now we come to the third part of tonight's talk, and we’ll try to run through these very quickly here, as time is winding down.

That is answering a few common objections.

The first objection that normally arises when we’re talking to our Protestant brothers and sisters goes as follows: the Catholic doctrine of purgatory implies that a person who has accepted Christ and who has been saved—right?—entered

into a saving relationship with Jesus is not totally purified.

I mean, that’s what the Catholic doctrine of purgatory implies: that a saved soul is not yet perfectly purified, as the Catechism states.

Some will argue, you know, if that soul is not perfectly purified and has to be purified through suffering and works of love, etc.,

doesn’t that take away from the power of the cross of Christ?

I mean, doesn’t that say or doesn’t that imply that the redemption of Jesus Christ on the cross that He won for us is not sufficient and not powerful enough to totally purify us?

If you’re saying you’re saved but you’ve still got to be purified, well, that seems to imply Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was insufficient.

Can you feel the weight of that objection?

I could see, on the surface, that it would seem, due to a misunderstanding, to take away from the cross of Christ.

So how do we answer that?

Well, the first step by which we can answer this objection is by distinguishing what we refer to as the objective level of redemption and the subjective level of redemption.

Jesus' suffering on the cross is sufficient for redemption on an objective level.

In other words, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has redeemed the world and humanity, reuniting humanity back to God, which was a relationship broken by the original fall of Adam and Eve.

So on an objective level, independent of your belief or my belief, objectively, the world and humanity has been redeemed through the blood of Jesus on the cross, reuniting humanity back to God.

Further, on an objective level, Jesus' death on the cross has merited the possibility of my individual salvation or redemption, so that I, Carlo, can possibly be saved from my sins due to the merits of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

All right?

So that’s on an objective level: Jesus' death on the cross is sufficient for redemption.

However, the merits of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross have to be applied to my individual soul, which has to do with the subjective level of redemption.

The Bible witnesses to this; even our Protestant brothers and sisters would believe this.

You know, just because Jesus died on the cross doesn’t mean everybody’s going to Heaven, right?

There’s a subjective element—a part of man.

How are the merits of Jesus on the cross applied to the soul on the subjective level?

Well, as our Protestant friends would be more than happy to affirm: belief or faith.

Famous passage, John 3:16, right?

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have eternal life.

So belief or faith is absolutely necessary.

Through faith, the merits of Christ on the cross are subjectively applied to my individual soul.

Would somebody say, Well, wait a minute, Carlo, if you’ve got to believe to be saved, doesn’t that take away from the sufficiency of Jesus' death on the cross?

Absolutely not, right?

So you see how those merits have to be applied through faith.

St. Paul even teaches us that the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross are applied to us through suffering.

He teaches in Colossians 1:24, Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh, I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.

Wait a minute, Paul, you complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

Are you saying that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is insufficient for my salvation?

Is that what Paul is saying?

No, Paul is not referring to the objective level of redemption.

What is Paul referring to?

The subjective level.

Paul is teaching us that through suffering, my friends, the merits of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross can be applied to my soul, and it is in that sense that he talks about making up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

What is lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

Not the objectivity of His death on the cross, but the subjective application and making that up—satisfying that for the sake of the whole body.

So notice there’s redemptive suffering here.

Paul suffers for the sake of what?

The body—the Church.

Through my suffering, united to Christ, I can affect your soul.

So you see the communion of saints built into that theology.

You see the idea of redemptive suffering—that suffering can have purpose and meaning according to Christian revelation.

We also know from the teaching of St. Paul that baptism applies the objective merits won for us by Jesus on the cross.

In Romans 6:3-4, St. Paul says, Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Notice, according to St. Paul, in order to die to the old man and rise in Christ with the resurrected life—which is what?

The application of the merits of Jesus' death on the cross—it’s through baptism.

So we see that on an objective level, Jesus' death on the cross is sufficient, but those merits have to be applied on a subjective level.

This leads us to step two: the application of the merits of Christ's death on the cross to the soul is a process, friends.

It’s not a one-time deal, but the application to the soul is a process that we go through in stages.

There’s an initial stage where the merits of Christ's cross are applied to the soul in the sacrament of baptism, and you’re entering into that covenantal relationship with God the Father, right?

And the Son of the Holy Spirit.

You’re saved!

You’re a saved one; your soul is purified.

But the application continues.

The subjective level of redemption continues in a process throughout our life.

We might even refer to it as a process of sanctification.

There’s salvation, where you enter into a saving relationship with Christ—friendship with Christ—but the soul has to be sanctified, has to go through a process of sanctification throughout one’s life.

And the Bible testifies to this.

I am sure that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Beginning a good work?

Sounds like the initial stage of justification or redemption or salvation.

But bringing that good work to what?

Completion.

Notice there’s some not yet there, right?

There’s a presence; it’s present, but it’s not completely perfected yet—the process of sanctification, of bringing the good work to perfection.

In 2 Corinthians 7:1, St. Paul writes, Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.

Note the theme of cleansing the spirit—making that holiness perfect.

Well, wait a minute, Paul; I thought you were already holy.

Weren’t you saved?

Weren’t you believing, as our Protestant brothers and sisters say, a born-again Christian?

As Catholics, we might say a born-again Christian because guess what?

He was baptized!

Amen?

Catholics?

Amen.

Okay, baptism is our rebirth.

But Paul is a born-again Christian; he is in a saving relationship with God.

He is an hagioi, a holy one—a little s saint, right?

But yet, he mentions that the holiness is not yet perfected.

This is pointing to the Catholic understanding of the process of sanctification—the application of the merits of Jesus' death on the cross continually being applied to the soul.

Does that take away from the suffering of Christ?

Does this process of sanctification imply that Jesus' death was insufficient?

No! Then finally, St. Peter writes in 1 Peter 1:22, Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

Obedience to the truth has purified, and love has made love sincere.

As the other places in Scripture teach us, as St. Paul says in Romans 6:16, obedience leads to justification—not just a one-time obedience, but a constant confession of faith, as Hebrews 4:14 suggests.

We constantly confess our love in Christ and obey the truth, constantly purifying our soul.

That doesn't take away from Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

In conclusion, in light of the fact that the merits of Jesus' death on the cross have to be subjectively applied, and that subjective application is a process throughout one’s life in different stages of being sanctified, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory—which implies that a saved soul has to be perfectly purified—doesn't take away from the cross of Christ.

It does not imply that Jesus' death on the cross is insufficient or not powerful enough to make us holy.

Au contraire!

On the contrary, it actually witnesses to the power of Jesus' death on the cross because, through the process of sanctification, when my soul is being purified through belief, through suffering, as St. Paul says, or initially through baptism and obedience to the truth through love, guess what?

My soul is being purified by what?

The merits of Jesus' death on the cross, being applied throughout my life to my soul.

So, rather than taking away from Jesus' death on the cross, it glorifies Him.

Now, I'm out of time here.

Unfortunately, I apologize; I was not able to get to objections two and three, but you see there on your handout, just very briefly, I won’t go into it in detail.

Objection two is very similar to objection one; it's based upon the idea that the divine justice of God has been totally satisfied by the death of Jesus on the cross.

He suffered—here's the pitch line—He suffered so that I don't have to suffer.

He paid the price of sin, suffering, and death in order that I do not have to pay the price of sin, suffering, and death.

So the objection runs as follows: Well, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory says, Well, wait a minute!

Even though you’re forgiven as a sinner, you’ve still got to suffer a little bit with this temporal punishment stuff.

Well, doesn't that imply the insufficiency of Jesus' death on the cross?

Didn't He suffer so that I don’t have to suffer?

Isn't that what temporal punishment implies?

And the answer to that is obviously no.

Jesus' death on the cross won for us the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; that’s the objective level.

He made it possible for the guilt of sin to be washed away from my soul.

However, that does not negate the fact that temporal punishment still remains even after the sin is forgiven.

Why?

As I mentioned before, because man has done something in the offense.

God takes care of the consequence of sin that man cannot take care of, but man does—and indeed should—play a part in taking care of the temporal consequence.

Where in the Bible does it speak of temporal punishment for forgiven sinners?

Check out the Garden of Eden, right?

The temporal consequences for the original sin are seen in Genesis 3:16-19. Also, consider the lie about the Promised Land in Numbers 14, verses 20-23. Recall how the 12 spies go into the Promised Land; they come back, and 10 of the 12 say, We can’t take the land.

What happens to all of the Israelites?

They begin murmuring against the Lord.

You know what Numbers 14:20 states?

The Lord speaks and says, I have pardoned them of their sin.

But what’s the temporal consequence?

They’re going to wander in the desert for 40 years, and that first generation is going to die off.

Only the second generation, 19 and under, will experience the Promised Land and enter into it.

So there’s a temporal punishment, even though the Lord forgave them of their sin.

Thirdly, remember the story of David and his adultery.

He repents wholeheartedly—Psalm 51 is the psalm of that repentance.

But as the prophet Nathan tells him, The Lord has forgiven you, David.

But guess what?

You’re going to have a pretty harsh temporal punishment: your son shall die.

Right?

Now, that’s not an eternal punishment; that’s a pretty harsh temporal punishment, but nevertheless, it’s temporal.

So, these examples highlight the concept of temporal punishment that can exist even after sin is forgiven.

For a forgiven sinner, Luke 3:8 shows St. John the Baptist saying, Produce fruits worthy of repentance.

So we repent, we’re forgiven of our sins, but we still have to do something and produce fruits worthy of that.

This ties into the idea of penance.

In Luke 12:47-48, remember when Jesus talks about how the one who knows better is going to receive stripes for wrongdoing, right?

But the one who does not know or is ignorant of the wrongdoing still receives stripes for the wrongdoing—that is, receives punishment—but it’s lesser.

It’s a lesser form of punishment than the one who did know.

So there seem to be differing degrees of punishment there, possibly very close or akin to temporal punishment.

Finally, St. Paul excommunicates the immoral member of the Church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5:1-2. Excommunication is a temporal punishment.

Remember when the member would repent, according to 2 Corinthians 2, St. Paul readmits him back into fellowship, lifting the ban of excommunication.

But the idea is that there are temporal consequences—there are temporal punishments due for sin, and the Bible makes this clear.

So, for the Catholic Church to teach that temporal punishment due for sin remains even after the guilt of sin is forgiven does not imply the insufficiency of Jesus' death on the cross.

Temporal punishment is a reality according to the Bible.

Now, finally, objection number three: some will say, in 2 Corinthians 5:8, St. Paul says, To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

Is that what St. Paul says?

So what’s the indication and what’s the implication?

Well, if to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, there’s no room for purgatory there, right?

If you’re dying in friendship with Christ, what does St. Paul say?

He says, We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

St. Paul does not say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, indicating that there would be no room for purgatory.

No, he says, I would rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord.

He’s not saying if A, then B; he’s saying he desires both A and B, right?

To be present with the Lord—guess what?

That’s to be absent from the body, and we can be assured of that.

However, to be absent from the body does not necessarily imply you’re present with the Lord.

Some will try and use 2 Corinthians 5:8 to negate the Catholic understanding of purgatory, but the argument doesn't hold water because they’re reading into the text something that St. Paul is not saying.

So these are three common objections that often arise, and hopefully, we have a little bit of information to answer them.

Then finally, in part number four, I was going to share with you some quotes from the early Church Fathers.

St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the reality of purgatory.

They all refer to some sort of purifying fire after death, drawing off of St. Paul’s imagery in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. So we have St. Clement of Alexandria in 200 AD, Tertullian in 200 AD, Lactantius—who was an early Christian author and actually a tutor of Constantine’s son—around 240 AD. He lived from 240 to 320, so it would have been in the late 3rd century to the early 4th century when he’s writing about purgatory.

We also have St. Basil the Great in the late 4th century and St. Gregory of Nyssa in the late 4th century as well.

St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa are two prominent figures from the Eastern Church, and they testify to the existence of this purifying fire after death.

That’s important because there are some differing positions among our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Some Orthodox Christians accept the reality of purgatory, although their understanding of it may be a little bit different from how the Church has defined it.

Some Orthodox Christians totally reject the existence of purgatory, but that comes with the territory because they have no magisterium to officially define their teaching.

So you’re going to have varying degrees of belief even among Orthodox Christians.

So, my dear friends, hopefully, that provides a brief catechetical and apologetical teaching on purgatory.

I hope you learned a thing or three.

I’ll go ahead and stop right now officially on the teaching and just, very briefly, over the break, the question of indulgences came up.

First of all, what is an indulgence?

An indulgence is basically an act of charity or some form of act or work of mercy that the Church will ascribe to say that if you perform that act of charity under certain conditions, you will remit either some temporal punishment due to sin—we call that a partial indulgence—or this act of charity, under certain conditions, will remit all temporal punishment due for sin.

That’s called a plenary indulgence, okay?

So that’s what an indulgence is.

An indulgence is the Church saying that this particular act of love can remit temporal punishment due for sin.

All right?

Nothing new under the sun for that, right?

Yes?

For sin already forgiven—very good qualification!

For sin already forgiven.

So it’s not a matter of being forgiven of your sin; it’s simply remitting the temporal punishment due for the forgiven sin.

Thank you, Father.

The question was: can a plenary indulgence or even a partial indulgence be performed by me on behalf of a soul or the souls in purgatory?

And the answer would be yes.

This is a practice of Catholics throughout our tradition.

It’s based upon the fundamental idea that my acts of love can affect you in this life and can affect you in the afterlife in your final purification.

Does that make sense?

All right, so it’s a matter based on the doctrine of the communion of saints and the mystical body of Christ—how one member can affect another member.

However, we must make the qualification that you do not know when the indulgence is performed.

You do not know definitively, right, whether that act of love is applied specifically and definitively to that particular soul or not because you really don’t know if that soul’s there or not, right?

Okay?

And further, just a little note for plenary indulgences: whenever we perform a plenary indulgence, we really don’t know infallibly or with certitude if we ourselves have obtained it.

We can do it with confidence, right?

But we really don’t know ourselves infallibly if we have obtained it.

So just keep praying—right?

So there are a few little miscellaneous details there that are important to know.

But in light of all of that, it’s still important to say that it is a worthy act of piety that the Church has always upheld for us to practice.

And the Church has, Father, isn't it called the Enchiridion of Indulgences or something like that?

I can’t remember the exact term, but yes, there is a book listing all the things that are plenary or partial and all of the conditions necessary, which are quite a few.

A partial indulgence is not too hard to achieve; a plenary indulgence is quite hard.

Okay?