THE BROWN SCAPULAR

The Catholic Church has many things that they call “sacramentals.”  These are not sacraments as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (CCC #1667), but sacramentals are associated with the Church’s rituals and are said to put the user of the sacramental in the right frame of mind to receive the sacraments.  One type of sacramental is the scapular, which comes in different sizes, shapes and colors.  Probably the most popular one is the brown scapular.

What is the brown scapular?  It is made up of two small pieces of rectangular brown (sometimes black) pieces of wool cloth connected by a cord or string, worn by Catholics over their shoulders (thus the name “scapular,” which means “shoulder blade”).  One piece is placed in the front on the chest and the other to the back.  This scapular is said to ensure its wearer that he will make it to Heaven if he dies with it on.

Enter Simon Stock

This story of the brown scapular begins with an interesting but little known character, one “Saint” Simon Stock.  He was given the name Stock (which means “tree trunk”) because when he was twelve years old he began living as a hermit in a hollow tree trunk.  Many years later, on July 16, 1251, in Cambridge England, he allegedly received a vision from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and claimed that she appeared to him, holding a brown scapular in her hand and she said to him:

“Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace.  Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”  

See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular

The Pope’s Vision

According to another source, Mary also later appeared to Pope John XXII, and told him:

“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.” (Sacratissimo Uti Culmine, a papal bull [i.e., an official public decree] of Pope John XXII, in 1322)

And this source also claimed:

“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in Purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

This promise from Mary to release Catholics from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death (for those who have faithfully worn the scapular) became known as the “Sabbatine Privilege.”

Entrust Yourself Totally to Mary?

According to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the brown scapular is “an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.” (Emphasis added)

See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

One source says that the scapular is used as a silent prayer and that “[A] prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be.” It also states that “[T]he evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation…”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

Indulgences

There are also indulgences (ways to reduce the amount of punishment for one’s sins) connected with the wearing of this scapular. 

On the day that the scapular is received, there is a plenary (full) indulgence if one goes to Confession and Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

One is promised a plenary indulgence at the moment of death if he has gone to Catholic Confession and Communion and if he devoutly utters the name of Jesus.

Devoutly reciting the prayer known as the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” gets one a 100 day indulgence. 

And each time the scapular is kissed one gets a 500 day indulgence!  See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/faqs-the-brown-scapular/

Ratified by Popes

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online) admits that the bull of Pope John XXII containing the Sabbatine Privilege was later ratified by some popes in the sixteenth century.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “ratify” as “to approve and sanction formally; to confirm.”

One source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was “approved and confirmed” by sixteen different popes.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d026_Sabbatine.htm

At least one source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was an official teaching of the Catholic Church until 1613:

“Pope John XXII claimed that the ‘Blessed Virgin’ came to him in Rome in the year 1322, confirming to him the scapular promise made to Simon Stock and adding the ‘Sabbatine Privilege’ in which she promised to personally descend into purgatory every Saturday and free those who had died wearing her scapular.  This was an official church doctrine until the year 1613.  At that time Pope Paul V modified the Sabbatine Privilege, saying that Mary did not necessarily free the souls in purgatory on Saturday but only aided them and eased their suffering.” (Emphasis added)

https://fdocuments.us/document/a-timeline-of-anti-church-history-first-bible-mystery-of-iniquitypdf.html

Tell Me It Aint So!

But there are some sources that say that the Sabbatine Privilege and Pope John XXII’s bull was a forgery. 

According to the Catholic Dictionary (online):

“There was an earlier version of the Sabbatine Privilege that is now considered certainly erroneous, based on an alleged bull of Pope John XXII, supposedly published in 1322.  This apocryphal document has the Pope say that Carmelites and others who wear the scapular would be delivered by the ‘Blessed Virgin’ from Purgatory on the Saturday after their death.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36174

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), the Sabbatine Privilege is “universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

Concluding Thoughts

Ok, so there seem to be some conflicting ideas, even among Catholics, concerning the brown scapular and its “Sabbatine Privilege.”  What should be far more worrisome for our Catholic friends is the fact that none of this is biblical, including the concept of indulgences, Purgatory and the supposed visions of “Mary” (2 Corinthians 11:14). 

The doctrine of Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the perfect and finished work / suffering of the Savior on the cross (John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10).  There is no need for Christians to suffer any kind of punishment after this life is over.  And if there is no Purgatory, there are no indulgences.

 

Also, special articles of clothing do nothing to help save us.  God looks at the heart.  We are saved by grace, through faith, not by any works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).  The term “grace” screams UNMERITED favor from God (Matthew 18:23-27; Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:21).

There is a definite link between the asceticism (severe religious self-discipline) in the early life of “Saint” Simon Stock (who lived in a hollow tree) and the wearing of the brown scapular.  They are both an intrinsic part of a works-based salvation and God will have no part of that.

Concerning the Sabbatine Privilege, if it was indeed a forgery, or an “un-Catholic” idea, how could it be ratified and endorsed by multiple popes over such a long period?  Does not the Catholic Church have the knowledge or the resources to detect forgeries within a short time?  What happened to those poor souls who believed Pope John XXII until 1613 who expected to be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday?  Did all those popes ratify a false teaching?  If yes, then what does this say about truth in the Catholic Church?  If no, then why did they change the teaching in 1613?

The story of the brown scapular is one containing ridiculous concepts like perfect prayer while holding the scapular, rendering demons powerless in the face of temptation while wearing it, and obtaining time off from Purgatory by kissing this inanimate object. 

Who does the scapular glorify the most?  The whole emphasis of this teaching of the brown scapular seems to be that Catholics must entrust themselves to Mary.  It is (supposedly) Mary that introduced it, and it is Mary who “sustains” it.  It is about her, not about Jesus.  Mary is the star in this story, but let us learn a critical lesson from John the baptist, who said, “He [Jesus] must increase, but I [John] must decrease” (John 3:30).  It appears here (as it often does in the Catholic Church) that, in the teaching of the brown scapular, Jesus has taken a back seat to Mary.

THE TREASURY OF MERIT

In the teaching of the Catholic Church, there is a sort of spiritual “bank” called the Treasury of Merit.  In it are the merits (good works, righteousness) of Christ and of Mary and of the “saints.”  These merits are obtained through something called indulgences, which can only be granted through the authority of the pope (CCC 1478), and are offered to man so that all who partake of them might be “set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.” 

In other words, the Treasury of Merit exists to help people by applying its contents toward their salvation, i.e., to pay for their sins.

The Catechism

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints ‘the Church’s treasury’, which is not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries.  On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God.  They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father.  In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.” (CCC 1476)

Furthermore, it says:

“This treasury includes, as well, the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.  In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.” (CCC 1477)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

First of all, is this an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church?  Indeed, according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, the Treasury of Merit is a dogmatic teaching, and therefore, an “infallible” doctrine of the Catholic Church.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

This same link admits that Christ’s satisfaction / payment for sins is “infinite”:

“Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin.”

Yet, the Catholic Church adds the “merits” of Mary and the “saints” to this treasury, as well.  But if Christ’s merits are infinite, why add the merits of anyone else?  If they are adding anything, they must not really believe that His merits are “more than sufficient,” after all.  So, is there something lacking in the work of the Savior on the cross so that the merits of others must be added?  It would seem so in the Catholic system of salvation.

Nowhere does Scripture describe or even imply a “treasury” in which human merit is mixed with the merit of Jesus Christ to bring about justification / salvation.  The Catholic Treasury of Merit offers a false hope.  Salvation cannot be purchased with money, human merit, or good works.  It comes only from a surrender to Jesus Christ and trusting in His work on the cross, which results in a changed heart.

The Great Insult

Imagine that you owed someone a hundred million dollars (in other words, an impossible debt).  But a generous billionaire felt sorry for you and offered to fully pay that debt for you.  But let’s say that you wanted to “chip in” and you added five cents to the billionaire’s payment, then you went around bragging to your friends that you “participated” in paying your incredibly enormous debt.  But this would be an awful insult to the billionaire, whose ample wealth more than covered your debt, and he (not you) had every reason to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

It is the same thing with salvation.  Trying to add human merits (even from the “saints” or from Mary) to the perfect and completely sufficient merit of Jesus’ work on the cross is an incredible insult to God.  It would be poisoning the pure and infinite well of salvation that Jesus provided.

No Mixture Allowed

If anyone appears before God on Judgment Day with the hope of such mixed merit, he will be rejected!  Only the pure merit of Jesus Christ will be sufficient to allow us to enter glory, and He needed no help from anyone to do it.

If you attempt to add anything (any work, any merit) to the cross, you bring upon yourself the curse of the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5; Galatians 1:8-9).  See this link:

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

A Catholic Objection

But the Catholic may say, “But there are two types of punishments for sins:  One is eternal punishment (which has to do with the guilt of sin – CCC 1472, 1473).  In this case, a person is forgiven the guilt, yet still requires work, effort, or suffering by the sinner.  That is, he is still required to satisfy some temporal punishment (CCC 1471, 1472, and 1473), which is satisfied either by suffering and / or good deeds done here in this life, or suffering in Purgatory.  This Treasury of Merit is to provide remission (forgiveness) only for the temporal punishments for sin.”

But isn’t this Treasury supposed to contain Christ’s merits?  And isn’t His merit “inexhaustible” and “more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin”?  So why would this “treasury” not be enough to take care of ALL punishment for sin, both temporal and eternal?

 

Again, the following are the phrases that the Catholic Church itself uses in describing the contents of the Treasury of Merit:  Its merits supposedly “set [a person] free from sin,” they “attain communion with the Father,” they are “truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value,” they are “an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin,” and they consist of Christ’s merits, which are “the infinite value, which can never be exhausted.” 

All this, yet this treasury’s merits can only satisfy the so-called temporal punishments of sin?!!!  The best we can say is that it is only partially effective in setting one “free from [his] sin.”  The Catholic Church speaks highly of this treasury’s “efficacy,” but apparently, it is not effective against the eternal penalty for sins, i.e., it is not enough to satisfy one’s guilt.  Therefore, it cannot be of Christ (John 1:29; 19:30; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

There is a great contradiction here!

Conclusion

One last thing.  Note that CCC 1477 above says that Mary and the “saints,” through their own merits, have not only attained their own salvation, but have merit left over to apply to others in need of merit.  This would mean that they were able to obtain for themselves excess righteousness!  They were able to earn more than enough to be saved!  This is an absurd and absolutely unbiblical concept.  According to Scripture, we can’t pay for our own salvation (Romans chapters 3 and 4; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5), and if we can’t even pay for our own, then how in the world could we get “extra” merit to pay for others?!!!  If anyone could merit salvation for himself, then Jesus came and died for nothing! (Galatians 2:21) 

This concept of the Treasury of Merit totally nullifies the sufficiency of the Savior’s suffering and work on the cross.  And not only that, according to Indulgentiarum Doctrina (an Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI – Chapter 4, Section 8) the Catholic Church threatens an anathema (condemnation) for anyone who says that indulgences are useless, or for anyone who denies the power of the Catholic Church to grant them.  So the Catholic is obligated to believe in this false “treasury.”

It is obvious that the Treasury of Merit is part of a system designed to make its members totally dependent on a man-centered, works-based salvation… which is no salvation at all.

See also this article on indulgences: 

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B171030/the-obscenity-of-indulgences

DAVE ARMSTRONG ON PRAYING TO SAINTS

Popular Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has written an article defending the practice of praying to, and praying for, the saints.  The “saints” to which Catholic theology refers in these cases are certain persons who lived especially holy lives and who have died and (it is assumed) went on to Heaven.  They are not referring to the biblical definiton, which says that every true believer is a saint (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1), but rather, the Catholic definiton.  How they know that these “saints” are really in Heaven to begin with is altogether another issue.  But Armstrong’s defense of the saints giving and receiving prayer can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead

The first example that Armstrong uses in an attempt to make his case is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.  He first points to the fact that in the King James Version of the Bible, the rich man used the term “I pray thee” (v. 27) and implies that this is evidence that the rich man was “praying” to Abraham.  Therefore, praying to a saint.

But we have to remember that this was “King James talk,” which was the common way to speak in the day the King James Bible was written.  The term “I pray thee” can indeed be used while in prayer, but it does not necessarily mean that one is praying.  It simply means, “I ask of you,” or “I beg of you.”  

Also, biblically speaking, prayer is only to someone who is in another realm, different than your own, for example, from earth to Heaven, and more specifically, from people on earth to God in Heaven (which is the only biblical example).  In Luke 16, Abraham and the rich man were in the same realm, near to each other.  They were certainly in two different places, but in the same realm (Hades).  So, two people in Hades communicating with each other is no different than two people in Heaven communicating with each other, or two people on earth communicating with each other – they are simply talking face to face, not praying.

Toward the end of this point, Armstrong says:

“Thus we can only conclude that human beings in the afterlife can be prayed to and that they have the power… to fulfill the requests… exactly what the Catholic communion of saints / invocation of saints holds…”

No, sorry Dave, but this is not the “only” conclusion that we can come to concerning prayer in this passage.  Actually, there is nothing at all in this passage about prayer.  Not only is yours not the only conclusion, it is not even a valid conclusion, according to the Bible.  Throughout Scripture, the only God-approved prayer is directed to God alone, not to Mary, not to saints, and not to angels.

Armstrong’s second example is King Saul “petitioning” the prophet Samuel after Samuel died (1 Samuel 28:15-16).  Actually, this is the story of how Saul, acting against God’s law, sought out the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7) to conjure up Samuel to help him.  It was (and is) a sin to be involved in necromancy or to use mediums to communicate with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12).  Even the witch knew that! (1 Samuel 28:3, 9)

It is interesting that Catholics will complain when Protestants compare praying to saints with necromancy, using mediums, or seances (all communicating with the dead), yet here, Dave Armstrong uses that very thing (the services of a medium) as an example of praying to saints!

Armstrong then states, “The Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died.”  And then he uses Jeremiah 15:1 to try and support his claim:

Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.  Send them out of my sight, and let them go!”

But any “casual assumptions” about the dead praying for us in this passage are made by Catholics, not Scripture.  God is not saying that Moses and Samuel actually stood before Him and interceded for the people.  He was making the point that even if they would have, He wouldn’t answer even their request.  God also says something similar to the verse above in Ezekiel 14:14: 

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

He then repeats this concept in verses 16, 18, and 20.  But in each case God is merely saying that EVEN IF great men of God like Moses, Samuel, Noah, Daniel, or Job would try to intervene (great intercessors as they were), God STILL would not answer their prayers, because of the great sin of Israel.  That’s the point God is making here.  He certainly was not endorsing the idea of prayer from these men after death.  Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone in God’s will praying to anyone but God, nor do we see any departed saints praying for us.

Next, Dave points out that the bystanders at Jesus’ crucifixion believed that He was asking (praying to) Elijah to come and save Him.  Supposedly, “This type of petition was commonly believed at the time.”  But these Jews had no biblical reason whatsoever to believe that one could pray to anyone other than God.  

Dave Armstrong’s third example is the apostle Paul supposedly praying for the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18: 

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Notice that this is merely an assumption on Dave’s part.  There is no mention of anyone dead here.  It is possible that Onesiphorus was simply away from home, so maybe that is why Paul prayed for his household (2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19). 

 

But even if Onesiphorus was indeed dead when Paul wrote this, the final destiny of Onesiphorus was fixed, it was already decided (Luke 16:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8; Hebrews 9:27).  No amount of prayer from anyone, even an apostle, could help his state after death.  

But obviously, Onesiphorus was a godly man, or Paul would not have spoken so highly of him.  Therefore, if he was dead, there was no need to ask God for mercy for Onesiphorus, since he had already obtained that final mercy.  But there was something else going on here.  If Onesiphorus was actually dead, Paul’s “prayer” for him to find mercy in that day was not specifically a petition to “help” him, but rather, a pious wish, an expression of a heart-felt desire toward him.  Like when we say “May you rest in peace” to someone who is dead.  It is not really praying for him or to him, but it is simply a sentiment toward the dearly departed, a commending of them to God.

But Catholics may ask, “But what about Purgatory?  Couldn’t Paul have been praying for Onesiphorus’ well-being in Purgatory?”  No, Scripture does not speak of such a place.  After death, there is only Heaven or Hell.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

And the fourth example Armstrong gives us is both Jesus and Peter supposedly “praying to saints and for the dead.”  He points to Acts 9:36-41 where a girl named Tabitha had died.  And elsewhere, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-42), speaking “directly to a dead man (in effect, ‘praying’ to him).”

This is desperation.  There is a difference between 1) praying to a dead person who is supposedly in Heaven to help someone on earth, and 2) authoritatively and miraculously speaking to a dead body to raise it from the dead.  Neither Jesus nor Peter was asking these dead persons for help, i.e., they were not praying “to” them.  And neither were they praying “for” them in the Catholic sense of praying to aid them in Purgatory.  Again, this is a ridiculous attempt by Dave Armstrong to validate the Catholic practice of praying to the dead to help the one praying, and praying for the dead to help them to get out of Purgatory.  This is a desperate, shameful, and irresponsible manipulating of Holy Scripture, confusing and deceiving multitudes of Catholics.

For more information on praying to saints, see these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html

THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series we looked at the doctrine of Purgatory, and saw that, at its core, it is a corrupt teaching because it is based on the false notions that 1) Jesus’ work on the cross is not enough to forgive all our sins, and 2) mere humans can atone for sin.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

This month we will look at the Scripture verses that Catholics and others will use to try to prove the teaching.  The concept of Purgatory is not consistent with the principles of Scripture, and our intent here is to show the weakness of these Catholic arguments.

What Does the Catholic Church Say?

 

The Council of Trent assures us that Purgatory is a biblical doctrine when it says that this teaching has come both “…from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers…” (Session XXV, “Decree Concerning Purgatory”)

The online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with Trent and speaks of the “proofs” of the Catholic position “both in Scripture and in Tradition.” (Purgatory, under subheading “Proofs”)

But on the other hand, the New Catholic Encyclopedia implies that the doctrine has some support from Scripture, but admits:

"In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture." (Vol. XI, pg. 1034, Copyright 1967, Catholic University of America)

So, which is it?  Why is there a contradiction in these official Catholic sources?  Interestingly, both these Catholic encyclopedias have the same official Catholic seals of approval, i.e., the “nihil obstat” and the “imprimatur,” yet they don’t agree on whether Purgatory is actually biblical or not.

So, Is Purgatory Really in the Bible?

Here are some common Scripture passages (in no particular order) that Catholics will use to try and support the doctrine of Purgatory:

1 Corinthians 3: (NASV used throughout, unless otherwise noted)

10) According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it.  But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 

11) For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

12) Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

13) each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 

 

14) If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

 

15) If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

  

And Catholics will say, “See, this is Purgatory!”  But this passage is not talking about purging sin from (or purifying) the believer himself; it is about revealing the quality of the believer’s WORK which will determine his rewards.  In fact, it says nothing about “temporal punishments” or sins.  It is not about any kind of punishment, but rather, eternal rewards (or lack thereof).  Catholics read the concept of Purgatory back into this text, although it is just not there.  Just because we see the word “fire,” does not mean that this is Purgatory.

 

In this passage, Paul uses the phrase “suffer loss” in verse 15, and it is a specific Greek term, “zemioo,” meaning “to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss.”  The same term is used by Paul in Philippians 3:8, where he had “…suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.”

Matthew 16:26 also uses the same Greek term where Jesus said: 

 

For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits [suffers the loss of] his soul…

So, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is about suffering the loss of certain eternal rewards, not suffering for sins in Purgatory.

Furthermore, the Catholic New American Bible has the following footnote on this passage:

“The text of v. 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” (World Publishing, Copyright 1987, Page 1233)

By their own admission, there is no support for the doctrine of Purgatory from this passage.

Another passage Catholics use is Matthew 12:

31) Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32) And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.

  

Catholics will say that this passage is telling us that some sins can be forgiven in “the age to come.” But we know that there is no forgiveness in Hell, therefore, this must mean they are forgiven in Purgatory, right?

No, this simply means that this specific sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) is a sin that will never be forgiven.  The parallel passage in Mark makes this clear:

 

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29)

That’s all it’s saying.  It is not suggesting that any sin can be forgiven in the afterlife.  Besides, Purgatory is NOT depicted by the Catholic Church as a place or state of forgiveness, anyway, but of punishment.  So neither does this passage support the concept of Purgatory.

Matthew 5:

25) Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

 

26) Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.

  

Catholics will say that this must be speaking of Purgatory.  Jesus appears to be saying that there is a possibility of getting out of this particular place.  And since no one gets out of Hell, this must be Purgatory.

First of all, no one can say that it is NOT speaking of Hell, since Hell is mentioned in this very same context (verse 22).  And the person in Hell would indeed be there “until he had paid up the last cent,” meaning that his stay there would be forever, since he could never pay for it.  For the person in Hell, there is no end to his payment for his sins.

In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-27), Jesus tells us of the man who was forgiven of a very great (actually, an impossible) debt.  But he was forgiven of his debt simply because he humbled himself and begged for mercy from the king.  The king felt compassion for him and released him of his obligation.  This is clearly a picture of God dealing with us in salvation.  Notice here that the servant was not given the means to repay the debt, but he was altogether forgiven.  That is, he had to pay nothing because of his master’s great mercy.  In the same way, we Christians do not have to atone for our sins.  Jesus Christ did all the necessary atoning.  This clearly demonstrates the error in the concept of Purgatory.  So, once again, the Catholic attempt to use Matthew 5:25-26 also fails the test.

Job 1:5:

And it came about, when the days of feasting had completed their cycle, that Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.”  Thus Job did continually.

  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions Job offering sacrifices for his sons (CCC #1032), as though this somehow supports the idea of Purgatory.  First of all, his sons were living at the time, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with praying for souls in Purgatory.

Secondly, ALL biblical sacrifices (in the 66-book Protestant Bible) were offered for the living, without a single mention of Purgatory.  So, Job 1:5 does not point to Purgatory, either.

2 Maccabees 12:39-46

39) On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.

40) But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.

41) They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.

42) Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43) He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;

44) for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

45) But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

  

46) Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. (Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition, online)

Catholics will say that because of this need to pray for the dead, there MUST be an intermediate state like Purgatory.

No, these dead soldiers, according to the text, were very plainly struck down by God for their idolatry.  And according to Catholic teaching, idolatry is a “mortal” sin (CCC 1857; 1858), and mortal sin sends one to Hell, not Purgatory.  Purgatory is supposedly for “venial” (lesser) sins.  So, the concept of Purgatory does not follow here.

 

Since the teaching of Purgatory contradicts this passage, then either:

1) This book of 2 Maccabees is wrong (and therefore uninspired) or 

2) Catholic teaching about venial and mortal sin is wrong, or

3) both of the above. 

 

The evidence points to number 3.

Conclusion

There IS no Purgatory.  Like the children’s story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” Catholic apologists are seeing something in Scripture that’s simply not there.  But this story (Purgatory) won’t just end in embarrassment like the children’s story does.  Rather, it will end in eternal souls being lost, because of their warped view of an “insufficient” Savior.

It is absolutely critical to remember that Jesus Christ CANCELED our record of sin debt:

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

 … When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high. (Hebrews 1:3)

Once again, there is no punishment or suffering in the afterlife for the Christian.  Sin has been completely atoned for.  Jesus Christ does the purifying and the atoning… not us.   That’s what Jesus meant when He said, “It is finished!” (John 19:30)