The Holy Eucharist

A major point of contention between Catholics and Protestants is the nature of the Holy Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper.  This is another issue where there is no unified “Protestant position.” On one end of the spectrum is the belief that the Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic, with the bread being a representation of the body of the Lord, and the wine (or in some communities, grape juice) being a representation of His blood.  On the other end of the Protestant spectrum is that the substance of the body and blood of the Lord are present in the sacrament, but the substance of the bread and wine remain, but only as long as the celebration continues.  The substance departs once the celebration comes to an end.  Though the latter is in some ways similar to Catholic doctrine, there are some significant differences.  To examine the nature of the Eucharist, we will start with the Scriptures, but we will also be looking at other sources to aid in interpretation.

The first thing that I want to look at is frequency.  In the most Catholic parishes, the Eucharist is celebrated every day.  In many parishes, multiple daily opportunities to receive the Eucharist are available.  If one is in the proper disposition, it is expected that they receive the Eucharist every Sunday and on Holy Days of Obligation.  It is required, by Canon Law, for Catholics to receive the Eucharist at least once a year.  By comparison, virtually all Protestant denominations celebrate the Sacrament much less frequently.  At my parents’ church, it is celebrated the first Sunday of the month.  At the Baptist church I used to attend, we celebrated the Lord’s Supper quarterly.  One community I know of, a Fundamentalist church in Steubenville, Ohio, celebrates it only annually at Passover time.  With this disparity of modern practice, I wonder if there is an indication of frequency in the Scriptures.

For starters, Jesus did not indicate how often it was to be done, but it is implied that the Eucharist is to be celebrated periodically:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."  In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

I will concede that there is no indication whatsoever in the institution of the Eucharist that indicate the frequency of the celebration.  Thankfully, there is more in the Scriptures about this Sacrament.  The first celebration of the Sacrament was on the morning of the resurrection, as recounted in Luke 24:13-31.  Since the Eucharist was celebrated by Jesus on the day of His resurrection, it would seem to imply that the Eucharist is to be celebrated frequently.  This is a tenuous conclusion, so I will again return to the Scriptures to provide more evidence of frequent reception of the Eucharist.  The strongest evidence is in Acts:

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

Though not explicit, it does seem to indicate that the Eucharist was celebrated “day by day.”  At any rate, the Sacrament was celebrated more frequently than once per year.  This much is certain. 

The next issue to be addressed is the one that causes the greatest amount of consternation between Catholics and Protestants: the nature of the Sacrament itself, i.e., is the Eucharist the actual body and blood of the Lord, or is it merely a symbol?  To properly address this requires a short foray into some basic theology regarding Sacraments.  For Catholics, the Sacraments are signs that are efficacious, that is, that they do something.  So they are symbols, but not only symbols.  There is a deeper reality.    To fully explain the signs and graces connected with the Eucharist would take a book (literally, I am actually working on one.)  Suffice it to say that the Old Testament is full of Eucharistic imagery.  Here are but a few examples:

·         Melchizadek’s offering of bread and wine.

·         Moses turning the Nile to blood.

·         Feeding the Israelites on manna in the wilderness.

·         Various offerings in Leviticus.

Before the Passion, there are many events in the Gospels that point to the centrality of the Eucharist to the Gospel message:

·         Jesus was born in Bethlehem (“House of Bread”) and laid in a manger (feeding trough).

·         Of the imagery in the Gospel of John, two of the most prominent are references to bread and wine.

·         The miraculous feedings, the incident on the Road to Emmaus, and the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist all follow the same pattern (Jesus gave thanks, broke the bread, and gave)

Of these, the most germane to the discussion is John 6.  Remember in the previous chapter, an account of a miraculous feeding in the form of multiplication of fishes and loaves takes place.  This is significant because of the bread imagery used here.  Jesus refers to himself as “the Bread of Life” (vv. 35, 48).  He calls himself “the bread that came down from heaven” (v. 41, 50-51).  Furthermore in v. 51, Jesus says that the bread he offers is his own flesh.  This becomes a bone of contention between Protestants and Catholics.  Is Jesus speaking literally or figuratively?  Could it be possible that he was speaking in the form of a parable, or just using a shocking metaphor?  The only answer borne out in the text is “No.”  According to this narrative Jesus gives some teaching wherein he tells those gathered that they need to eat his flesh. This results in questioning by the Jews, after which he not only repeats himself, but provides an even more visceral image.  This causes an increase in the murmuring against Him, and many disciples leave.  This next part is absolutely critical.  Jesus turns to Peter and the Twelve with a question: “Will you also leave?”  He did not say, “Since the others have left, I am now going to explain to you what I really meant.” He did not approach those leaving and explain the metaphor.  This can only be taken to mean that Jesus was speaking in a literal fashion, and it speaks to the faith of the twelve when Peter answers, “Who else has the words of life?”

There is a problem with this interpretation.  I am not an authoritative interpreter.  You could say as much, and I would have no choice but to agree.  But I can also appeal to the Apostolic Fathers.  St. Ignatius of Antioch died in AD 127.  He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was himself a direct disciple of St. John the Apostle.  We are talking about the testimony of one who was very close indeed to the Apostles.  St. Ignatius was martyred in Rome, and on the way, he wrote letters to various Churches.  One such letter was to the Church at Smyrna, where he describes the Eucharist:

But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

Keep in mind that this letter was written in AD 110, less than 20 years after the death of St. John.  Is it possible that St. Ignatius, the Bishop of the Church in Antioch could have departed from the true teaching of the Church so quickly?  If so, is it then likely that the “true” teaching was completely forgotten, only to rediscovered nearly 1500 years later?  Which scenario is more likely, using simple reason?  St. Ignatius teaching error almost immediately after the death of the last Apostle, with true teaching discovered more than a millennium later, or St. Ignatius, who likely knew John personally, was teaching rightly all along, and the Reformation got it wrong?  I end with this question. The answer is up to you.

Why can't women be priests?

This is a hotbed of discussion.  Essentially, the charge is made that the Catholic Church is chauvinist, if not downright misogynistic, because the Church will not change her position on the ordination of women.  The problem is a twofold misunderstanding.  On the one hand, many believe that it is within the power of the papacy to actually change doctrine.  The other is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of Holy Orders.
The pope is not a mere head of state, and the Church is a kingdom, not a democracy.  Public opinion has no bearing on Church teachings.  Certain practices have changed: laws concerning fasting and abstinence, introduction of the vernacular into the Mass, adult baptisms were formerly nude (its true!), private confessions (they were public in the early Church), and so on.  Even those things concerning sacraments the changes have been with the form of the sacrament, but not the matter.  A priest cannot consecrate a donut for Communion.  It is not the right matter.  Likewise in Holy Orders, a woman cannot be ordained. Why? Because men are the proper matter.  Now of course, this in and of itself requires some explanation.  Why are men the proper matter? It has to do with the signs and symbols being presented.  Sacraments are physical signs.  For example, in Baptism, we use water.  Someone cannot be baptized in Kool-Aid.  Baptism is a cleansing from sin.  Can you wash anything in Kool-Aid?  Neither can we use some other kind of cleansing agent.  Why not? Because we are reborn to a life in Christ.  Water is a sign of life.  The symbolism is very important in the Sacraments.  The masculinity of the priesthood is part of the physical sign.  When the priest is administering the Sacraments, he is not simply Father Bob.  He is acting "in the person of Christ."  The Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the Bridegroom.  A bridegroom, be definition, is male.  The symbolism of the priest as Christ is lost with a female priesthood.  There is also the misunderstanding as to the nature of the priesthood.  It is a Sacrament of Service.  The Priest serves the people, and he obeys the Church.  It is not a position of power.

Scripture and Tradition

One point of contention between Catholics and Protestants is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Most Protestants hold to the doctrines of Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture Alone." The reason I say "doctrines" rather than doctrine, is because like a great many other things, there is not a single position on Sola Scriptura in the Protestant world. On one end of the spectrum you will find those that hold that the Bible is the sole source for all matters of faith and practice. On the other end are those who say that doctrine can have other sources, but must not be contrary to the Scriptures (which is actually very close to the Catholic position). Rather than go through the myriad Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, I think it would be much more useful to try to explain the Catholic position, that doctrine has three sources: The Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, or teaching authority, of the Church. Using Scriptures, I will do my utmost to defend these teachings of the Church. By holding myself to the stricter standard of Sola Scriptura, I feel the defense of the Catholic position will be that much more compelling. I will close this post with an explanation as to why it is important to take all three into consideration.

• The Holy Scriptures are a legitimate source of doctrine. Though some will try to claim otherwise, the Catholic Church does hold that the Holy Bible is a source of doctrine. The Scriptures speak highly of the usefulness of Scripture, and commends the study of Scripture:
• All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
• Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Little else will be said of the Holy Scriptures as on this point all who call themselves Christian agree: The Bible is a legitimate source of doctrine.

· Tradition is not universally condemned in the Scriptures. It is a misunderstanding that tradition is universally condemned in the Holy Writ. In most cases, the individual Protestant layman should not be held accountable for this belief. In all likelihood, he or she is using one of two translations: the King James Version (KJV) or New International Version of the Bible. I am going to reproduce some verses from the KJV, the NIV, and the Revised Standard Version (RSV). Afterwards I will explain the significance of why these verses were chosen, and why it is germane to the discussion.

	RSV	KJV	NIV	Greek
Mt. 15:6	So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.	And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.	he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.	Paradosis
Mk 7:9	And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!	And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.	And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!	Paradosis
1 Cor 11:2	I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.	Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.	I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.	Paradosis
Col 2:8	See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.	Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.	See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.	Paradosis
2 Thess 2:15	So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.	Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.	So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.	Paradosis

The reason I provided this chart was to show that all five of these verses, when tradition is spoken of in a negative light, the NIV substitutes the word “teaching.” If you dig you will find this is consistent in the NIV. If “paradosis” is used positively it becomes “teaching.” If used in a negative light, it becomes “tradition.” The RSV always translates “paradosis” as “tradition” and with the KJV, it is anyone’s guess. Most Protestants use one of these two translations. It becomes easy to understand why the average layman thinks tradition is universally condemned, when usually the word is used in a negative context in Protestant Bibles. Again the point I am trying to get at is that tradition is not universally condemned.

· The Scriptures establish the Church as a teaching authority. The third source of doctrine comes from the teaching authority of the Church. This, too is supported by the Scriptures:

o And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

o If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen take one or two along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)

o When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)

o I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15-16)

Some explanation is in order. The first is this idea of “binding and loosing.” In the 21^st century, the original meaning of this has been lost. In most cases, when examining Scripture, one can look at other passages with similar phraseology. The only other place this occurs is in Matthew 18:18, where the promise to Peter regarding binding and loosing is extended to the others. This does little to shed light on the meaning of the terms. It is in cases like this that we must reach outside of the Bible to understand what is meant. If one were to investigate the rabbinical traditions of the Ancient Near East, it would be discovered that “binding and loosing” is the authority to declare moral rights and wrongs. This is what was conferred to the Church, bolstered by the authority to discipline in Matthew 18:15-17, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in John 16:13, and reaffirmation of this authority in 2 Timothy. It is clear in the Scriptures that the Church has authority to teach.

As my final note, will give a brief explanation why it is important to not limit this. My Christology professor once said, “It is important to remember that every heresy can be backed up by Scripture.” This is why we must rely on the Church’s Tradition and Teaching authority to clear up disputes. As the Scriptures say, it is easy to misunderstand the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).

My New Manifesto

In my previous post, I alluded to a "new direction." It came to me while I was eating lunch. From here forward "Debunking the Myths" will have a shipt in philosophy, while persuing the same goal: to give a defense of the Catholic faith. My new guiding principles are thus:

1. It is a poor polemic to simply attack the positions of others. Commencing immediately, I will no longer be trollig the internet looking for utterly rediculous claims that even the vast majority of non-Catholics reject. You will no longer see claims from Jack Chick and his ilk. Rather I will be taking a position of the Catholic Church and explaining it to the best of my ability.
2. Emotion-driven rants are a thing of the past (this point applies to my other blog, Marching Orders as well). My arguments will appeal to the Fathers, the Catechism, Scriptures, and logical reasoning. They will not appeal to "I am ticked off and darn it I am right!"
3. This site is not a forum for debate. Those seeking to debate the contents of my posts will not be approved. If you want to debate, there are many places this can be done, including Catholic Answers Forums.

By enacting these principles, I hope that this blog will improve, and that both I and my readers can grow spritually from the effort.

Dominus Vobiscum

New direction

The direction of this blog is going to change. It must change. So far, m posts have been largely defensive and argumentative. That is not the way to show people the truth. The new direction must be more charitable, more done out of love that "I am going to prove you wrong!" This past week has been monumental for me. I now know that I must approach Catholicism from a new direction. It has to flow from the love of Christ. I will post again soon, when God shows me the proper way to do this. I cannot teach, if my motive is simply to prove to my reader that I am right.

Changing doctrine?

This post is a departure form the others, as it is a refutation of a general criticism that a specific claim. Te charge is that the Catholic Church changes doctrine. If doctrine gets changed, does that not make Church Infallibility a self-refuting false doctrine? How is this to be answered? I will capitulate that if doctrine has changed, then yes, infallibility would be rendered invalid. So then the question becomes "Has the Church ever changed doctrine?" There are several things tht will be certainly be brought up:

• Catholics no longer are required to eat meat on Fridays
• Masses are now ordinarily in the vernacular. Previously they were in Latin.
• Catholics are now permitted to marry Protestants
• Priests were not always celibate

There are others, but I think these will suffice to prove my point. First, we must examine what is entailed in Papal Infallibility. Simply put, when the post is exercising his authority as the pastor of the Universal Church, he is making a solemn definition, and he is teaching on faith and morals, the Pope speaks infallibly. Furthermore when the College of Bishops are in agreement with each other, in communion with the Pope, and are making a declaration on faith and morals, they are likewise speaking infallibly. With these restrictions, infallible statements are fairly rare. In all of the 20th century, the only infallible statements made were the documents of Vatican 2, insofar as the statements made on faith and morals, and the definition of Mary's Assumption into heaven.

The rarity of infallible statements notwithstanding, there are further distinctions to be made. First is that a line must be drawn between "doctrine" and "discipline." Clerical celibacy is a discipline. Abstinence from meat is a discipline. The language of the liturgy is discipline. (As a side note, if the Church would require abstinence of meat on Fridays, the sin would not be consuming meat, but failing to submit to legitimate authority.) Doctrine is an absolute teaching in faith or morals: The Mass is both a meal and a sacrifice. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Artificial means of contraception are not to be practiced. Remarriage after divorce is unacceptable. Mary is the Mother of God. The Scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The distinction is clear: Doctrine is what we believe; practice is how we respond to that belief. With this distinction in mind, it becomes clear that doctrine has not changed, but our practice most certainly has.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Purgatory.

OK, so the title is corny, but it is true. The basic charge is the shrill cry "PURGATORY ISN"T IN THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!" And to a degree that statement is accurate. The word "Purgatory" is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. That is hardly relevant, because "Trinity," "Rapture," and "Bible" aren't to be found in the Bible either. I will show that the concept of Purgatory is very much in the Bible. Perhaps it is not explicitly in the Bible, but it is implied, and the Scriptures can be interpreted to support the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. I will gather that most Protestants will not find these arguments convincing. The reason is that they interpret these Scriptures in a different fashion than what the Church does. In actuality the dispute over Purgatory is not as much about Purgatory itself, but over authority to interpret the Scriptures. But, alas, I am getting ahead of myself.

Before I get into the Biblical defense of Purgatory, I would like to explain what exactly Purgatory is and what it is not. When i was a Fundamentalist, I was under the impression that Purgatory was kind of a "lesser Hell" that people went to if they didn't receive all of the Sacraments. (I now know that in most cases it is not possible to receive all seven, as no woman can receive Holy Orders, and Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony are mutually exclusive in the West and limited in the East). Now, rather than give a definition of Purgatory off the top of my head, I will copy the teaching of the Church verbatim from the Catechism:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death, they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 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 certain 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.

1032 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.” 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. 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.

So what is it exactly that the Catechism tells us about Purgatory?

· It a final purification. It is not punishment or torment, but rather it is a period of cleansing.

· It is temporary. There is no mention of an eternity in Purgatory.

· All who enter Purgatory are saved. Again, Purgatory is the final purification before entrance into heaven.

I have said before that Purgatory is Scriptural, so let us now delve into God’s preserved written Word and see what God tells us about this final phase of purification.

The Old Testament is as good a place to start as any, and I will look at the great prophet, Isaiah. In the book that bears his name, we have an account of the purging of sin:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”

And th foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coalwhich he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.” (Isa. 6:1-7, RSV-CE2)

Here we see the purging of sin. The very holiness of God revealed the guiltiness of Isaiah, and the righteous prophet needed to be cleansed of his sin to be in the presence of God. The need to be pure in the presence of God is a recurring theme in the Scriptures. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve hid from God after they had sinned (Gen 3:8). In Genesis 16, Hagar is in disbelief that she had “seen God and remained alive.” Moses at the burning bush was afraid to look at God (Ex. 3:6). There are those who will reject this idea of the need to be pure in the face of God because this evidence is all from the Old Testament. Well the same idea is brought back in Revelation. We are told, quite plainly, that “nothing unclean shall enter [the New Jerusalem].”

There will still be an objection to all of this. “I am saved. My sins are forgiven. My sin-debt is paid in full!” This objection sounds like a good one. If we persevere to the end we will be saved. It was rightly said of Jesus by John the Baptist, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29) Let us look at the nature of sin. This is best done in an analogy. (This is not my own. This came from of Mother Angelica’s many, many television appearances.):

There was a little boy who was given some brand new clothes to wear to Mass. On the way home from Mass, he asked if he could play outside, as it was such a beautiful day. His mother replied, “Yes, you may, but you need to change your clothes first. I don’t want you to get them dirty.” The little boy agreed, but when they got home, after they had lunch he went straight outside without changing clothes. As luck would have it, he fell down, while running outside and his clothes became covered with mud. He immediately realized that he forgot to change clothes. Sullen and downcast, he went inside. “Mama,” he said, “I’m sorry, but I forgot to change clothes and I got them all muddy.” His mother looked down at him and said “You are forgiven, just go change right now, OK?”

The point of this story is that he sinned through his own fault, he repented, he was forgiven. But only one thing remained: his clothes still needed cleaned. The same is true with us and our sin. We are forgiven, that is true enough, but the soul is still dirty. The sin leaves foul gunk behind that needs to be cleansed. When we are baptized, that is all washed away if we had committed of any personal sin before our baptism, as would be the case of an adult convert. But when we commit sin after our baptism, the remnants of sin are left that need cleansed and purified.

Some of my readers might say, “That is a cute story, but it isn’t Scripture, so has no value for the establishment of a doctrine.” I will concede the point that it isn’t Scripture, so let us find the concept of cleansing in the Scriptures. (I will even stick to the New Testament to keep the dispensationalists happy!) The clearest passage is 1 Corinthians 3:10-15:

According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building on it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one 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. 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.

This passage says that all of our works in our life will be tested. And for those works which are not of God will be burned away, and the key here is that we will suffer loss, though we will be saved. This is the process the Church names Purgatory.

In the beginning of this post I said that the dissension over Purgatory is really about Church authority. That is because the main objection to this last Scripture is not that could not possibly be about Purgatory, but rather that is not how Protestants choose to interpret the passage. To be honest, this passage is murky. There are multiple ways to interpret it. The Church interprets it as an indication of Purgatory. When Jesus gave the power to Peter, and then the Apostles, to “bind and loose,” what he was doing was giving the Church the authority to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively when needed. And that is really the crux of the issue. We need to listen to the authority given to us by Jesus.