THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

 

Well folks, this is the last of the seven Catholic sacraments, and today we’re talking about what Catholics call the sacrament of “Holy Communion,” or the “Holy Eucharist.” 

This is the solemn ceremony where the Catholic priest blesses the bread and wine and it supposedly becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.  The priest then offers it to the members of the congregation for their spiritual nourishment.

I have addressed my objections to this topic before in great detail elsewhere on this blog.  See these links for detailed discussions and the ramifications involved:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/01/access-denied.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/02/eucharistic-wonders-miracles-or.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html

Source and Summit

How important is the Eucharist to Catholics?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’  The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." (CCC #1324 – Emphasis added)

Notice that all the other sacraments and “all ecclesiastical ministries and works” within the Catholic Church tie in with, and point to, the Eucharist.

As we can see, the Catholic Eucharist is extremely important in the Church.  In fact, it is EVERYTHING to them because it is the ultimate Catholic sacrament.  This is because:

“The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’  In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained’”…  (CCC #1374 – Emphasis in original).

Did you get that?  The wafer that the Catholic priest consecrates and gives to the members of the Church to eat is considered the actual BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ!  Yep, you’re eating His body and you’re eating His soul!  Literally!  Not sure how that works, but if you don’t believe that, this is what happens:

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)

That’s right.  If you don’t believe their teaching on the Eucharist, you are under the Catholic Church’s anathema.  Anathema means that you will experience the severest and gravest form of excommunication, where you are eternally condemned to Hell, unless and until you do the required penance, to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction.  You can find this definition in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Anathema.”

This is one reason why, in my first article on the Eucharist years ago on this blog, I said that this sacrament is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.  If it is what the Church says it is, then it is the most wonderful sacrament of all and we (Protestants included) should all line up to enthusiastically “receive Jesus” by eating Him in the form of the Eucharist.  But if it is not what they say it is, if what they’re eating is not actually Jesus, and what they are worshipping is a mere piece of bread, they are guilty of outright idolatry, a severe sin throughout the Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Kings 21:25-26; Jeremiah 7:16-19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 10:14).

So, if you believe this bread and wine is the ACTUAL, LITERAL, PHYSICAL Jesus, you’d better be absolutely sure that it is what they claim it is, and not just take someone’s word for it.  You’d better be certain as to whether it is a biblical concept or not!

Absent Does Not Mean Present

Again, the claim is that the bread and wine are literally Jesus.  It says that His physical presence is with us today.  In fact, they call it the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (CCC # 1378).  But note that the Bible is clear that Jesus’ physical presence here on earth is no longer the case:

Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial.  For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:7-8 – Emphasis added)

So tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said this?  In what sense do we NOT have Jesus today?  Does this passage mean that He is not here spiritually?  No, I think everyone would agree that we always have Him in a spiritual sense, right?  For example:

 

… and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20).

 

So, John 12:7-8 above is not talking about His presence in a spiritual sense.  So, again, if it is not in the spiritual sense, then in what way is He NOT present with us?

 

Now, Catholics will claim that He is present in a “sacramental” sense, but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suggest this concept.  The word “sacramental” (as an adjective) seems to be a conveniently flexible term in Catholicism, in fact, too flexible to have any real meaning.  The truth is, the whole idea of sacraments and “sacramental presence” is foreign to Scripture.  See here:

 https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

 

So that leaves a physical vacancy.  Jesus is no longer here physically.  And if that’s true, the Catholic Church is wrong about the “Real Presence.”

 

Again, in John 16:10, Jesus says:

And concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me.

How do we “no longer behold Jesus”?  Physically, of course.  He ascends to the Father and we don’t see Him anymore (at least, not until He returns).  It’s very simple.  Although Catholics will say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist, the Bible says that we don’t see Him in the Eucharist, i.e., we no longer behold Him.

Furthermore, in John 17:11, Jesus, when praying to the Father and about to leave, says:

And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee…

If He is no longer in the world (after His ascension), then, by definition, He is not physically here, so He can’t physically be in the Eucharist.

You Can’t Handle His Presence!

Ok, another point I want to make is that the Catholic Church makes extreme claims, and then later has to backtrack or play word games when called out on it.

One very unsustainable claim they make is that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.  And furthermore, “because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC #1374) 

By the way, it seems that some Catholics are hesitant to claim that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.  But terms like “the whole Christ,” “entirely present” and the “fullest sense” would appear to indicate otherwise.

But think about this.  What would happen to us if we were truly exposed to “the whole Christ” in all His glory?  The truth is, if we were ushered into His presence in the “fullest sense,” we would not be able to endure it, UNLESS we were in our heavenly bodies. 

Again, that level of exposure to Jesus Christ could only safely happen when we are in our glorified bodies.  Only then could we be able to endure His absolute fullness and glory.  Some saw Jesus in His new body right after His resurrection, but that was not the same thing.            

Why do I say this?  In the book of Revelation, the apostle John said:

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me…

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead… (Revelation 1:12, 17)

Folks, THIS is what happens when a mere human sees “the whole Christ” in the “fullest sense.”  Even John, probably the closest friend of Jesus on earth, fell as a dead man in His “fullest” presence.  John was utterly stunned and unable to even look at Jesus.  He was overwhelmed, virtually paralyzed, by the majesty of the Son of God.  If the Eucharist was all that Catholics say it is, no man would be able to stand before it.  Therefore, they are promoting a false teaching.

So What is the Purpose of Communion?

Catholics will always point to John chapter 6 when discussing the Eucharist.  They’ll say that when Jesus said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” (John 6:50-58), He was talking about the Communion service (Eucharist).  But when Jesus said this, He was simply speaking of “coming to Him” and “believing in Him,” as is plain in a previous verse in the same chapter (John 6:35).  This is obviously symbolic language and it was setting the stage for the rest of the passage.

The truth is, Communion is simply a holy memorial:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church does rightly believe that there is a “memorial” aspect in celebrating Communion, but they also falsely believe that the priest’s consecrating of the bread and wine “actualizes” the event of Calvary (CCC #1104). 

 

The word “actualize” means “to make actual” or “to make something a reality.”  They also claim that the Eucharistic ritual “re-presents” (makes present) the event of Calvary.  That’s why they claim that the victim of the Mass (Jesus) and the victim of Calvary (2000 years ago) is “one and the same” (CCC #1367; Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2).  The Eucharistic sacrifice (supposedly) brings the event of Calvary to the here and now.  The Catholic Church reads way too much into the biblical text, instead of letting it speak for itself.  But of course, this is all a “paschal mystery,” something that we non-Catholics just can’t seem to grasp.  Very often, when it comes to things that Catholics can’t verify biblically, it appears that another “mystery” is born in Catholic theology.  Convenient, huh?

 

But getting the benefits of Calvary is not “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood.”  Nor do these benefits include time-travel, where God makes the events of Calvary present (CCC # 1104, 1362, 1364, 1366), as though a past event is literally transferred into the present.

 

No, the benefits of Calvary are eternal salvation and a sanctified life, and these are simply received by faith, not by a ritual done by a priest of any kind.

 

One Sacrifice Offered, One Time, By One Person

 

Here’s another instance where the Catholic Church plays word games.  Catholics are sometimes accused of sacrificing Jesus over and over when the Eucharist is celebrated.  Of course, they deny this and claim that they are instead re-presenting that same one-time, once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. 

 

Even though that may sound good, it cannot be the case.  If the Catholic priest is indeed offering a sacrifice (as they claim), it is not a legitimate one.  Why?  Because only Jesus Christ, Himself, was able to make this one-time offering/sacrifice of Calvary, and He will never, ever, do it again, much less offer it daily (Hebrews 10:11-12 – See CCC #1389).  That, by definition, is what a one-time offering means.  It was offered once and it was only offered BY JESUS.  No man can rightly claim that he is offering, re-offering or re-presenting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It cannot and will not be done.  This Catholic “Eucharistic sacrifice” is not Jesus.  It is a REPLACEMENT of Him, a false offering (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:2, 10).

 

Using fancy verbs like “re-presenting” doesn’t help the Catholic case.  Actually, the verbs “sacrifice,” “offer,” and “present” are all synonyms in the Bible in the context of sacrifices.  They all mean basically the same thing and they are used interchangeably.  So you can’t say, “I’m not sacrificing Him again in the Eucharistic ritual, I’m only ‘re-presenting’ Him.”  But that ends up being the same thing.  Again, the words are interchangeable.  To “re-present” is to “re-offer” is to “re-sacrifice.”  There is no difference.

 

If a person successfully offered payment for an item, there would be no other offer.  The payment has been given and the debt is already paid for.  The transaction is completed.

 

Likewise, the event of Calvary is a successful payment/offering by Jesus to pay for the sin-debt of mankind.  Why would there ever be another offering of the same thing, since it is a completed transaction?   If something is paid for, there is no need for anyone else to present, RE-present or RE-offer that same payment. 

 

Stop and think, though: If the priest’s RE-offering or RE-presenting of payment is actually valid, that would mean that the original payment was illegitimate!  Would the Catholic Church ever admit that Jesus’ payment at the cross was invalid or illegitimate?  Because if the Eucharistic sacrifice is valid, then Jesus’ payment is indeed null and void.  The implications of this are blasphemous and totally unacceptable!

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the true biblical Communion service is not to point to the elements of the bread and wine.  That would be missing the whole point. It is not to physically “eat Jesus.”  The purpose of Communion is to use these signs/elements to remember the event of Calvary with heart-felt thankfulness to God for what Jesus did.  It is to point to the One who gave Himself willingly on the cross, who lovingly paid the penalty for mankind’s sins.  And that sacrifice is finished! (John 19:30)  The whole Communion service is about God’s offering to us, not about the church’s offering to God.

 

Well, folks, that’s the end of this brief address of this series on the seven Catholic sacraments.  Much more could be said and I know that many Catholics will disagree with me on at least some of my thoughts.  But I have endeavored to keep things biblically and logically sound, and I hope that this has been food for thought.

 

 

FLINGING ANATHEMAS

There is a big push today in the Catholic Church for ecumenism.  According to the Oxford dictionary of English, ecumenism is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.”  In fact, not only are they interested in uniting with Christian denominations, but with those in other world religions, as well.  So, how would this unity with other religions affect the groups involved?  Would they each be able to keep their respective beliefs or would they have to change their doctrines in order to unify?

A Schoolyard Story

There were several elementary school kids playing a game together on the schoolyard.  One of them was older, bigger and stronger than all the others.  Although all the kids knew the rules of the game, the big kid was cheating.  Not only was it quite obvious that the big kid was cheating, but his cheating was getting worse and worse.  But no one dared to point out his dishonesty, since they were afraid of him and didn’t want to be kicked out of the game.  Finally, a few of the other kids had enough!  They must face this cheating giant and confront his dishonesty.  

The group was relieved that someone finally spoke up.  But after their protest (which humiliated him) the big kid not only continued cheating, but he began to create ridiculous new rules for the game to his advantage, while all the others were harshly treated when they didn’t give in to his unfair demands and his new rules.  He was showing his true colors by demonstrating his childishness.  In any case, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

An Analogy

The story above is an analogy (although not perfect) of something that actually happened in history.  The Catholic Church was a large and powerful force in the 1500’s.  She had no equal in the religious world.  Not only was she corrupt, but the corruption kept increasing.  It seemed that no one dared to point out her corruption, lest they be kicked out of the church (excommunicated), and therefore, be unable to partake of her sacraments and lose “access to Heaven.”  Finally, a few men (later known as reformers) had had enough of this corrupt giant.  They were going to confront the Catholic Church concerning her unbiblical teachings and her corruption, thus starting the Protestant Reformation.  The people were relieved that someone finally spoke up and this movement caused many to leave the Catholic Church after hearing biblical truth.

But the Catholic Church didn’t take this lying down.  After the reformers’ protest, which humiliated and angered the Church, she began to persecute the reformers and made ridiculous and unscriptural demands on these “protesters.”  The Catholic Church didn’t want to play by the biblical rules, so she started the “Counter Reformation” and established the Council of Trent in 1545.  In this council, she issued multiple “anathemas” (formal curses) to those who refused to play by the Church’s rules, thus demonstrating her childishness and her unwillingness to abide by Scripture.  Again, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

“Let Him be Anathema!”

But what exactly were these anathemas with which the Catholic Church was threatening these protesters?  According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an anathema is:

“A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is:

“A ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.”

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an anathema from the Church is declaring the gravest, most serious, form of excommunication possible within the Catholic Church… an excommunication which eternally condemns the person to Hell… unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

The word “anathema” is used 150 times in the Council of Trent (including a couple of times using the variant, “anathematize”).  The anathemas of the Council of Trent pertain to, and protected, teachings like the canon (list of Bible books) of the Catholic Bible, veneration of saints, relics and “sacred images,” indulgences, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass, the Eucharist, sacraments, the Catholic view of justification (salvation), and original sin.  Interestingly, they seemed to focus their anathemas on those who were against these mostly Catholic ideas, desiring to maintain their unbiblical teachings and (through the power of anathema) force people into accepting them.

Catholics will tell us today that these anathemas were intended only for Catholics, since it is an excommunication (they can’t excommunicate non-members), but in practice it is obvious that the anathemas were directed toward the protesters and their biblical arguments.

But what about the unity that we mentioned at the beginning of the article, and this desire in the Catholic Church for “peace” and “cooperation” with other religions?  How can any group enjoy peace while having anathemas hanging over their heads?  How can all these different religions cooperate if they don’t even believe in these teachings?

Catholics will sometimes tell us that all these anathemas were canceled in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So, does this mean that there are no more anathemas?  You mean to tell me that these anathemas were all just a big mistake, after all?  Do they not count today?  If this is the case, this change in policy is little comfort for those profoundly affected by these anathemas in the past.  What about those who refused to comply and ended up persecuted or killed?  Would an apology hundreds of years later help them?  Because of this “change” in 1983, are those who perished because of these anathemas now released from Hell? 

The Catholic Church likes to brag that it has not changed its doctrine for 2000 years.  But if these “infallibly pronounced” anathemas are wrong or somehow unacceptable now, they must have also been wrong back then!  So much for an “infallible” church.  I pray that Catholics will see and understand this deception.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has been flinging anathemas for a long time now.  If they really are considered to be in force today by the Church, it is irrelevant because many, if not most, of the Council of Trent’s anathemas were not even biblical to start with, therefore, were never binding.  If they are considered to be no longer in force today, then the Catholic Church’s supposed “infallibility” has been exposed as fraudulent.  Either way, she has a problem.

Worst of all, it is ironic that the Catholic Church anathematizes HERSELF by preaching a false gospel, according to Galatians 1:8-9.

THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY (Part 1)

Purgatory… the name brings to mind creepy images of dark caves filled with suffering souls in smoke and fire.  There is much speculation, even from the “experts,” about how it actually works, and the degree of suffering, or how long one stays there.  But is Purgatory real?  Is it another place or state of being somewhere between Heaven and Hell?  Is it something that Christians should be concerned about?  And most importantly, does the Bible teach this concept?

Official Catholic Teaching

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

“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, according to this, when most people die, they may not be “fully purified” and ready to enter Heaven, since nothing unclean can enter it (Revelation 21:27).  According to the Catechism, we should pray for the souls in Purgatory and offer “works of penance” on their behalf, apparently, to lessen their pain and to help get them out sooner than “scheduled.”  But this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Works-Based

What is offensive to the gospel is not so much the possibility of having “another place or state” besides Heaven and Hell, but the idea that a mere human can pay for sins, whether his own or someone else’s.

First and foremost, we reject the concept of Purgatory (as all Christians should) because it involves a works-based salvation (Romans 4:4-5, Ephesians 2:8-9).  That is, Purgatory involves a sinner having to work or to endure some sort of suffering for his sins, and this work or suffering supposedly helps to atone for those sins.  But according to Scripture, this is impossible.  Atonement for sins involves the death of a PERFECT substitute (Hebrews 7:25-28; 10:14), and we know that there is only one Person who fits in that category, the Lord Jesus Christ.  No sinner can atone for his own sins, because he is tainted.  So, no one is qualified but Jesus, and we can do nothing to add to His work on the cross.  See also this article:

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

Other Problems

Ok, so what about the time of the Rapture / Resurrection? (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)  Those who are still alive when the Resurrection happens will not have time to go to Purgatory because Paul says that when it happens, “So shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:17).  Wouldn’t it be unfair that those who rise on that day (still having imperfections in their life) won’t have to endure the pains of Purgatory, like all those who died before them?
   

But Catholic apologists may say, “Punishment in Purgatory does not have to be months, years, or centuries long. Their purification could possibly last just one second!  We just don’t know ‘how time operates’ in the next life.”  Maybe so, but the doctrine of Purgatory has more serious problems to work out than “how time operates in the afterlife.” 

Anyway, concerning the length of time it takes to be “purged” and ready for Heaven, we believe that we will be changed instantly after death.  If our bodies are changed and perfected in the “twinkling of an eye” in the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52), then why can’t our soul and spirit be changed in like manner when we die?  We see no biblical reason to believe otherwise.

Temporal Punishment

The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent says:

"If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema." (CANON XXX)

Purgatory is largely based on the concept of “temporal punishments.”  According to Trent, the sinner destined for Purgatory is forgiven the guilt and the eternal punishment of his sins, but he still has “temporal punishment” to pay. 

   

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, (under Purgatory, subheading “Temporal Punishment”) it is “clearly the teaching of Scripture” that temporal punishment is due (to be paid) even after a sin is pardoned by God.  It goes on to give examples, like Adam being given the power to govern all things, yet he still had to work the ground which was cursed.  Moses was forgiven for striking the rock twice, yet he was not allowed to go into the Promised Land (Canaan).  David was forgiven for his sin with Bathsheba, yet their child still died.  Again, through these examples, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is attempting to prove that the concept of “temporal punishment” in Purgatory is biblical.  But these examples were earthly punishments!  These are consequences that happen here on earth, not in the afterlife.

 

To use another example, if someone who is married commits adultery, there can certainly be “temporal consequences” for his / her actions.  The two involved in the sin may be forgiven by God, but there are still possible consequences to their sin.  That is, 1) there is always the threat of a venereal disease, 2) one offended spouse could want a divorce, 3) the offended spouse could be violently jealous, or 4) a pregnancy could result from the adulterous affair.   Again, these are all earthly consequences.  But according to Scripture, there is no punishment, temporal or otherwise, for the Christian in the next life.  The only after-death punishment that the Bible speaks of under the New Covenant is Hell, and ultimately, the Lake of Fire… but that is only for the UNbeliever.

Are We Forgiven…Or Not?

One popular Catholic priest said in a debate that the idea of Purgatory is “Pay now, or pay later,” in the sense of working out a debt.  But that is certainly not the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.  The simple truth is, if we are “forgiven” for a sin but there is STILL some kind of punishment for us to pay, then we are not really forgiven, are we?  And it must follow that the work of Jesus on the cross was not really enough to pay the full penalty for your sins after all (1 John 1:7-9).  But would any real Christian dare say that?  That’s blasphemy!  If HIS payment was not enough for your sins, there will NEVER be enough payment for them.  But thank God that His suffering on Calvary is totally sufficient. 

Catholic apologists will say, “But Purgatory is how redemption is actually applied to us.  It is the “final push” of the sanctification process.  This was God’s plan all along.”  

No, this was not God’s plan.  God plainly tells us, over and over, that redemption is “applied” BY FAITH, TRUSTING, BELIEVING in HIS work and suffering, not ours.  See also this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-1.html#comment-form

Conclusion

To make matters worse, our Catholic friends are obligated to believe this false doctrine under penalty of anathema (condemnation), as noted in the Council of Trent quote above.  But there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to indicate that there will be additional punishment after death for those who are forgiven.  Otherwise, the word “forgiven” is meaningless.

Purgatory is a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus’ work and suffering at Calvary.  But proud and fallen man likes to think that he can work or earn his way into Heaven.  He doesn’t like it when people point to the cross, and that alone, for salvation. 

  

Next month, we will conclude this series by taking a look at the Scriptures that Catholics (and others) use to try and support the doctrine of Purgatory.  Stay tuned…