What Does the Church Teach About Purgatory?

By Catholic Answers Staff

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the
holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s
grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of
the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence
of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be
many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already
forgiven.

Two Judgments

When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that “it
is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). We are judged
instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At
the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers,
for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with
him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will
separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” In this general
judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

Augustine said, in The City of God, that “temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life
only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and
strictest judgment” (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is
purified of the remaining consequences of sin: “I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the
very last copper” (Luke 12:59).

Money, Money, Money

One argument anti-Catholics often use to attack purgatory is the idea that the Catholic Church
makes money from promulgating the doctrine. Without purgatory, the claim asserts, the Church
would go broke. Any number of anti-Catholic books claim the Church owes the majority of its wealth
to this doctrine. But the numbers just don’t add up.

When a Catholic requests a memorial Mass for the dead—that is, a Mass said for the benefit of
someone in purgatory—it is customary to give the parish priest a stipend, on the principles that the
laborer is worth his hire (Luke 10:7) and that those who preside at the altar share the altar’s
offerings (1 Cor. 9:13–14). In the United States, a stipend is commonly around five dollars; but the
indigent do not have to pay anything. A few people, of course, freely offer more. This money goes to
the parish priest, and priests are only allowed to receive one such stipend per day. No one gets rich
on five dollars a day, and certainly not the Church, which does not receive the money anyway.
But look at what happens on a Sunday. There are often hundreds of people at Mass. In a crowded
parish, there may be thousands. Many families and individuals deposit five dollars or more into the
collection basket; others deposit less. A few give much more. A parish might have four or five or six
Masses on a Sunday. The total from the Sunday collections far surpasses the paltry amount received
from the memorial Masses.

A Catholic “Invention”?

Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church “invented” the doctrine of purgatory to
make money, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics—the ones
who make their living attacking “Romanism”—seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great,
who reigned from A.D. 590–604.

But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the
fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her
soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of
heaven.

Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians
during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of
the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the
Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian
practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in
purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. (See Catholic Answers’ Fathers Know Best tract
The Roots of Purgatory for quotations from these and other early Christian sources.)

Why No Protests?

Whenever a date is set for the “invention” of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show
the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out
of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it?

A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms
(sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely
conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, Was this believed by our ancestors?
Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change,
if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests?

They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that
matter), that “true believers” in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel
doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call
tradition, and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it.

It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only
briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell.
Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the
just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his
death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and
preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These
people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not
be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a
temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the
Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo
of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It
proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.

“Purgatory Not in Scripture”

Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, “The word purgatory is
nowhere found in Scripture.” This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or
the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation
aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that
purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than
purgatory.

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt.
12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly,
Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a
righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as
through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one
is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic
doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: “In doing this he acted in a very
excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not
expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
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. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might
be freed from this sin” (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one
can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily.
This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation,
Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the
doctrine.

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion
since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the
Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the
Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be
purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in
the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had
always been believed by Jews and Christians.
Why Go To Purgatory?

Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for “nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev.
21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent,
“unclean.” Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which
is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining
entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.

Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that
“Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that
which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect,
that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is
nothing to be added or done by man.”

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that
does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is
applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification
through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and
purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter
heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he
accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

No Contradiction

The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a

contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are
sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of
sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the
early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward:
Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our
sanctification, which results in our suffering, because “[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful
rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Heb. 12:11).

Nothing Unclean

Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean,
but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely
“covered,” if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still
unclean.

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that “nothing unclean shall enter heaven.” From this it is
inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if “covered,” remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven.
It needs to be cleansed or “purged” of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in
purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2
Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us “to be saved through sanctification by the
Spirit.” Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets
into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive “for the
holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

The Roots of Purgatory

By Catholic Answers Staff

All Christians agree that we won’t be sinning in heaven. Sin and final glorification are utterly
incompatible. Therefore, between the sinfulness of this life and the glories of heaven, we must be
made pure. Between death and glory there is a purification.

Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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. The Church gives the
name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment
of the damned” (CCC 1030–1).

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the
New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.

The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the
time of Christ. The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old
Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which
records that Adam will be in mourning “until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years,
when I will turn his sorrow into joy” (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7). Orthodox Jews to this day believe
in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer
called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification.

Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final
purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied
this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, purgatory has been part of
the Christian faith from the very beginning.

Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but
there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists,
(2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and
offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular “place” in the afterlife
or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla

“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had
died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order
that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’” (Acts
of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

Abercius

“The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my
body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains
and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of
life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year.
May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius” (Epitaph of
Abercius [A.D. 190]).

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity

“[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a
gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a
filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This
Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with
disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so
that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and [I] knew that my brother was in suffering. But
I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we
passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my
prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then,
on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had
formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was
finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of
children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment” (The
Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).

Tertullian

“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into
eternal life]” (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting,
find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his
death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with
their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of
repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore
deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of
others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve
the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon
are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it
is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing;
another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long
suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by
suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment;
another to be at once crowned by the Lord” (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition;
next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to
put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very
great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most
solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory of Nyssa

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be
on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any
evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of
the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a
quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of
the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able
to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire”
(Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5],
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” (Homilies on First Corinthians
41:5 [A.D. 392]).

“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for
their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for
them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as
it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by
entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain
was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the
departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people
stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how,
when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those
who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this
consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may
give alms to the poor on their behalf” (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).

Augustine

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read
aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is
offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we
ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given
for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully
with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was
handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body
and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the
sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated
for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on
whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers
are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it
possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).

“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both
here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer
temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that
judgment” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and
either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly
and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that
perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in
hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited
when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the
piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is
offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who,
when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There
is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet
so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).
Is Purgatory in the Bible?
By Tim Staples

This may well be the most common single question I receive concerning our Catholic Faith whether
it be at conferences, via email, snail mail, or any other venue. In fact, I’ve answered it twice today
already, so I thought I might just blog about it.

We’ll begin by making clear just what we mean by “Purgatory.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church
teaches:

All who die in God’s grace, 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 (1030).

This seems so simple. Its common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean
shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil
and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I
dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after
we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.

In light of this, the truth about Purgatory is almost self-evident to Catholics. However, to many
Protestants this is one of the most repugnant of all Catholic teachings. It represents “a medieval
invention nowhere to be found in the Bible.” It’s often called “a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s
sacrifice.” It is said to represent “a second-chance theology that is abominable.” We get these and
many more such charges here at Catholic Answers when it comes to Purgatory. And most often the
inquiries come from Catholics who are asking for help to explain Purgatory to a friend, family
member, or co-worker.

A Very Good Place to Start

Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old
Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New
Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have
called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the
living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”

In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces
collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered
these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to
wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin.
Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed
might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a
sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the
dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”

There are usually two immediate objections to the use of this text when talking with Protestants.
First, they will dismiss any evidence presented therein because they do not accept the inspiration of
Maccabees. And second, they will claim these men in Maccabees committed the sin of idolatry,
which would be a mortal sin in Catholic theology. According to the Catholic Church, they would be in
Hell where there is no possibility of atonement. Thus, and ironically so, they will say, Purgatory must
be eliminated as a possible interpretation of this text if you’re Catholic.

The Catholic Response:

Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value.
Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews
believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the
faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised. And it is in this context Jesus declares in the New
Testament:

And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis
added).

This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life
to a people who already believed it. If Jesus wanted to condemn this teaching commonly taught in
Israel, he was not doing a very good job of it according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.

The next objection presents a more complex problem. The punishment for mortal sin is, in fact,
definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed in Hell according to Catholic
teaching (see CCC 1030). But it is a non-sequitur to conclude from this teaching that II Maccabees
could not be referring to a type of Purgatory.

First of all, a careful reading of the text reveals the sin of these men to be carrying small amulets “or
sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia” under their tunics as they were going in to battle. This would be
closer to a Christian baseball player believing there is some kind of power in his performing
superstitious rituals before going to bat than it would be to the mortal sin of idolatry. This was, most
likely, a venial sin for them. But even if what they did would have been objectively grave matter,
good Jews in ancient times—just like good Catholics today—believed they should always pray for the
souls of those who have died “for thou [O Lord], thou only knowest the hearts of the children of
men” (II Chr. 6:30). God alone knows the degree of culpability of these “sinners.” Moreover, some or
all of them may have repented before they died. Both Jews and Catholic Christians always retain
hope for the salvation of the deceased this side of heaven; thus, we always pray for those who have
died.

A Plainer Text

In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.

Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser
hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you,
you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
For Catholics, Tertullian for example, in De Anima 58, written in ca. AD 208, this teaching is parabolic,
using the well-known example of “prison” and the necessary penitence it represents, as a metaphor
for Purgatorial suffering that will be required for lesser transgressions, represented by the
“kodrantes” or “penny” of verse 26. But for many Protestants, our Lord is here giving simple
instructions to his followers concerning this life exclusively. This has nothing to do with Purgatory.

This traditional Protestant interpretation is very weak contextually. These verses are found in the
midst of the famous “Sermon on the Mount,” where our Lord teaches about heaven (vs. 20), hell (vs.
29-30), and both mortal (vs. 22) and venial sins (vs. 19), in a context that presents “the Kingdom of
Heaven” as the ultimate goal (see verses 3-12). Our Lord goes on to say if you do not love your
enemies, “what reward have you” (verse 46)? And he makes very clear these “rewards” are not of this
world. They are “rewards from your Father who is in heaven” (6:1) or “treasures in heaven” (6:19).

Further, as St. John points out in John 20:31, all Scripture is written “that believing, you may have
[eternal] life in his name.” Scripture must always be viewed in the context of our full realization of
the divine life in the world to come. Our present life is presented “as a vapor which appears for a
little while, and afterwards shall vanish away” (James 1:17). It would seem odd to see the deeper and
even “other worldly” emphasis throughout the Sermon of the Mount, excepting these two verses.

When we add to this the fact that the Greek word for prison, phulake, is the same word used by St.
Peter, in I Peter 3:19, to describe the “holding place” into which Jesus descended after his death to
liberate the detained spirits of Old Testament believers, the Catholic position makes even more
sense. Phulake is demonstrably used in the New Testament to refer to a temporary holding place
and not exclusively in this life.

The Plainest Text

I Corinthians 3:11-15 may well be the most straightforward text in all of Sacred Scripture when it
comes to Purgatory:

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, stubble—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.

No Christian sect I know of even attempts to deny this text speaks of the judgment of God where the
works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively
speaking. In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3;
Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting
symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some
are being purified. These works survive or burn according to their essential “quality” (Gr. hopoiov –
of what sort).

What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be
“burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13). It cannot be hell because souls are being saved. So
what is it? The Protestant calls it “the Judgment” and we Catholics agree. We Catholics simply specify
the part of the judgment of the saved where imperfections are purged as “Purgatory.”

Objection!

The Protestant respondent will immediately spotlight the fact that there is no mention, at least
explicitly, of “the cleansing of sin” anywhere in the text. There is only the testing of works. The focus
is on the rewards believers will receive for their service, not on how their character is cleansed from
sin or imperfection. And the believers here watch their works go through the fire, but they escape it!

First, what are sins, but bad or wicked works (see Matthew 7:21-23, John 8:40, Galatians 5:19-21)? If
these “works” do not represent sins and imperfections, why would they need to be eliminated?
Second, it is impossible for a “work” to be cleansed apart from the human being who performed it.
We are, in a certain sense, what we do when it comes to our moral choices. There is no such thing as
a “work” floating around somewhere detached from a human being that could be cleansed apart
from that human being. The idea of works being separate from persons does not make sense.

Most importantly, however, this idea of “works” being “burned up” apart from the soul that
performed the work contradicts the text itself. The text does say the works will be tested by fire, but
“if the work survives… he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss.”
And, “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (Gr. dia puros). The truth is: both the works of the
individual and the individual will go through the cleansing “fire” described by St. Paul in order that
“he” might finally be saved and enter into the joy of the Lord. Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory.
Is Purgatory Found in the Bible? A Dialogue
By Christine Pinhiero

OBJECTOR: A friend of mine told me that Catholics don’t believe in purgatory anymore. I found that
hard to believe because the Catholic Church is so slow in changing things, but he is a Catholic and I
figured he should know. Is this true?

CATHOLIC: Sadly, your Catholic friend is going more on hearsay than on solid knowledge. The
Catholic Church has not given up its belief in purgatory because purgatory is a dogma of the faith, or
what we may call a de fide doctrine.

OBJECTOR: I thought so. But that presents a big problem for me. The Catholic Church claims to
follow the teachings of the Bible, but I can find no mention of it in Scripture.

CATHOLIC: Before I show you some biblical references, tell me what you understand by the Catholic
teaching on purgatory, because I often find that it is misunderstood.

OBJECTOR: Purgatory is like a second chance for people who have not been good disciples of Jesus
in this world. If they didn’t follow him, they can work off their sins in purgatory and go to heaven. I
see purgatory as another instance of the Catholic dependence on good works as a means of
salvation. Purgatory is not heaven or hell but an in-between state in which people are punished for
their wrongs in this life that were not forgiven.

CATHOLIC: Your understanding is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It may surprise you to
know that the Church makes very few binding statements about what purgatory is. The sections in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church are very short. The most important statement is: “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” (CCC 1030). So, you see, purgatory is not a second chance after this life. It is only
for those who “die in God’s grace and friendship.”

OBJECTOR: What does it mean to “die in God’s grace and friendship”? Romans 10:9 says that if you
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. It doesn’t say anything about undergoing a
purification after death. All the holiness we need to enter heaven is in Christ. If we trust him, we will
be saved.

CATHOLIC: The language of dying in God’s grace is another way of saying that when we die we must
have faith in Christ, as Romans 10:9 says. But Paul did not intend his words in this text to be taken as
the complete story. We have to interpret one text in the Bible in the light of the whole Bible.

OBJECTOR: I agree, but there is not one word about purgatory in the Bible.

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “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.” You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a
purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is
saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A
person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is
not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for
nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).

OBJECTOR: You said we need to interpret verses of the Bible in context, but you left out verse 13:
“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.” You see it speaks about “the Day.”
That means the Day of Judgment, not some intermediate state of purgatory.

CATHOLIC: Of course we don’t really know what day Paul is talking about, so it would be arbitrary to
limit it to the final Day of Judgment. I take it that we both believe in a personal judgment after death
and a general judgment at the end of history.

OBJECTOR: Yes, but it makes much more sense to me to read this as referring to the general
judgment. It speaks about a day that brings one’s work to light, not about a process of purification.
Even if this text could refer to the personal judgment, it doesn’t show that the Catholic notion of
purgatory is true.

CATHOLIC: Assuming that the text could refer to the personal judgment, what do you see in the idea
of purgatory that’s not found in this passage?

OBJECTOR: Well, the most obvious difference is that it doesn’t mention anything like praying for the
dead, which is a major part of the Church’s teaching on purgatory.

CATHOLIC: I agree that these verses don’t mention prayers for the dead, but other passages in the
Bible do. The most obvious is 2 Maccabees 12:40–45. When Judas prays and has sacrifices offered
for soldiers who died in battle, he is commended for acting “very well and honorably.”

OBJECTOR: The book of 2 Maccabees isn’t inspired, so you can’t say that this shows scriptural
support for purgatory.

CATHOLIC: We’ll have to discuss the inspiration of Maccabees some other time, but at least this
passage shows that even before Christ the Jewish people recognized the need for purification from
sins after death and believed that the prayers and sacrifices of those still living could aid in this
purification. The Catholic Church didn’t make up this idea.

OBJECTOR: Well, even if the Catholic Church didn’t make it up, that doesn’t mean it’s true. We are
under the New Covenant, so many of the precepts of the Old Law, such as dietary laws, no longer
apply. This need for purification after death could be one of those things.

CATHOLIC: I agree that we cannot say that everything present in Judaism before Christ is something
that applies to our state after Christ. Even so, the indication in Maccabees of purification after death
is not a precept but a belief, and so it is not in the same category as dietary laws. Furthermore, the
New Testament shows a continuity with this idea. For example, Matthew 12:32 says that some
people who sin “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This suggests that
there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death,
then this passage doesn’t make much sense.

OBJECTOR: Jesus wasn’t speaking about the distinction between this life and the next; rather, he was
making a distinction between the age under the Old Covenant and the age under the New Covenant.

CATHOLIC: That interpretation doesn’t make sense, though, because it doesn’t fit with the context of
the verse. Right before this, Jesus had been casting out demons, and he announced that the
kingdom of God had come. He’s saying that the kingdom of God is already present; it would make
little sense for him to then refer to the dominion of the kingdom as an “age to come.”

OBJECTOR: Even so, this could just mean that at the moment of our death, we are purified and
forgiven. The testing in 1 Corinthians 3:14–15 could be instantaneous. I don’t see any evidence in the
Bible that souls actually exist after death in a state of existence that is neither heaven nor hell.

CATHOLIC: The Church doesn’t exclude the possibility that purgatory could be an instantaneous
purification, but there are indications in the Bible that souls do exist in some state that is neither
heaven nor hell. Look at 1 Peter 3:19–20. These verses show Jesus preaching to “to the spirits in
prison.” The “prison” cannot be heaven, because the people there do not need to have the Gospel
preached to them. It cannot be hell, because the souls in hell cannot repent. It must be something
else. As you can see, there is nothing unbiblical about the claim that those who have died might not
immediately go to heaven or to hell.

OBJECTOR: Even if the passages you cite do refer to some state other than heaven or hell, this
doesn’t automatically imply purgatory, because the “spirits in prison” died before Christ’s sacrifice
opened the way to heaven. The condition in 1 Peter is not necessarily the same as purgatory.

CATHOLIC: It is certainly possible that the state mentioned here, often called “the limbo of the
fathers,” is a state other than that of purgatory, but at least we’ve established that there is nothing
contrary to Scripture in asserting that those who have died can be in a temporary state other than
heaven or hell.

OBJECTOR: Well, I can understand why people who died before Christ might have been in a state
other than heaven or hell, but the idea of purgatory seems inconsistent with the love of God. If God
really loves us, why would he want us to go to purgatory and suffer for our sins?

CATHOLIC: On the contrary, the idea of purgatory, when properly understood, is entirely consistent
with the love of God. God wants us to be perfect (cf. Matt. 5:48). If we are not perfected by the time
we die, we will be perfected in purgatory. He loves us too much to allow us to be less than what he
created us to be. Purgatory is not about an angry God inflicting punishment upon his creatures. It is
about a loving Father who “disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness” (Heb. 12:10).
Purgatory’s Purifying Fire
By Karlo Broussard

Catholics often appeal to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 to support the Catholic dogma of purgatory:

For no other foundation can anyone 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, stubble—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.

But your Protestant friend may be ready for this text with his own objections. We saw one common
response in “Testing a Biblical Objection to Purgatory.” Let’s take a look at a few more here.

A Protestant may object that Paul says nothing about purification because the Greek word
katharizo, which means “to purify,” is not in the text. It’s not—but it doesn’t follow that Paul isn’t
talking about purification. According to that logic, we’d have to say that the New Testament doesn’t
teach the doctrine of the Trinity because it never uses the word.

So, the word isn’t there; but is there any evidence that the idea of purification is?

The idea of purification connotes the separation of good from bad. For example, the process of
refining gold results in a separation of the gold from impurities. Is this separation motif present in 1
Corinthians 3:11-15? Yes. The good building materials (gold, precious stones, and silver) are
separated from the bad building materials (wood, hay, and straw).

Furthermore, the imagery of fire conjures up the motif of purification. Peter uses it in 1 Peter 1:7
with reference to testing gold, and says that our sufferings test the genuineness of our faith. The
Psalmist describes God testing Israel as through fire: “For thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried
us as silver is tried . . . we went through fire and through water” (Ps. 66:10,12). Isaiah describes God’s
redemption of Israel in a similar way, saying that God will cleanse Jerusalem and the daughters of
Zion by “a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning” (Isa. 4:4). The seraphim in Isaiah 6:6-7
purifies the “guilt” of Isaiah and takes away his sins by touching his lips with a “burning coal.”

Since Scripture uses the metaphor of fire to convey the idea of testing and purification, and Paul
uses fire as a metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 within a context of testing the quality of works, it’s
reasonable to conclude that Paul is describing an event that involves purification.

A third piece of evidence for the purification motif is the idea of judgment. Recall that the prophet
Malachi describes God’s judgment as a “refiner’s fire,” and notes that God will “sit as a refiner”
purifying the sons of Levi and refining them like gold and silver (Mal. 3:2-3). Given that Scripture
describes God’s judgment as a purifying fire, it’s reasonable to infer that Paul’s description of the
fiery judgment in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks of purification.
Your Protestant friend may concede a purification theme but object that it’s only the works that
are being purified, not the individual. Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph Mackenzie
use this counter in their book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences.

How should we respond?

First, it’s true that the fire tests the works. But these works represent a person’s actions: whether
they contributed to the building up of the Church or not. And it seems difficult to conceive a mode in
which a person’s actions would be tested or purified apart from the person himself. Our actions
don’t float around somewhere separate from us as we stand by as an onlooker. Our deeds are
connected to us, since they proceed from our will. They determine our moral character, whether for
the good or bad. So if the builder’s actions (“works”) are being tested by fire, then it seems
reasonable to conclude that the builder is being tested by fire as well.

Second, Paul indicates that the testing of the works will have some sort of purifying effect on the
builder, for if the works are burned up “he will suffer loss.” Even if the loss were merely a loss of a
greater reward in heaven (since he’s still saved—v. 15), and not the sufferings that result in the soul
being purified of venial sin (see the Catechism 1031), the loss still would have a corresponding
existential effect.

For example, the builder would have some sort of negative experience for losing the reward. Also,
he would be disabused of the false notion that some of his works were good and thus achieve a
greater spiritual enlightenment about the nature of his deeds.

Moreover, Paul makes explicit that the builder, along with his works, will go through the purifying
fire: “he will be saved, but only as through fire” (v. 15). This envisions a man escaping from a burning
building that he built. It would be an unpleasant and shameful experience to watch the house that
you built go up in flames, knowing that you could have used better material than wood, hay, and
straw to build your house. The purifying fire that tests the builder’s works is the same purifying fire
that tests the builder, making him fit to receive his final salvation: the Beatific Vision.

There’s one last counter that your Protestant friend might make. The text speaks only of the
builder being purified by fire; in context, this refers to ministers who build up the local churches after
Paul (or another apostle) has laid the foundation. It doesn’t say anything about everyday Christians
experiencing this purification.

But even if Paul were only speaking of the minister, it would still be reasonable to apply the passage
to all Christians. Paul describes what happens on the day of judgment—either at the end of our lives
or at the end of the world, whichever comes first. And since all Christians will be judged (Rom. 2:6-7),
it’s reasonable to think that the same principles of judgment would apply: testing of works and
purification.

The wider context of the passage seems to support this view. Paul includes all Christians in his
subsequent warnings about judgment. In v. 16, Paul refers to the Corinthians as God’s temple. In the
next verse he warns that “if any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him.”
Paul has in mind the factions that the Corinthians were creating in their church. Some were saying “I
belong to Paul,” and others, “I belong to Apollos” (v. 4). Paul sees such factionist activity as destroying
the Church, the direct opposite of building up the Church. If in v. 17 Paul warns the Corinthians—and
by way of extension all Christians—about judgment, then it seems reasonable that he would intend
the principles of judgment he lays out in vv. 11-15 to apply to them as well, and not just to ministers.

Finally, there is evidence that Paul envisions all Christians participating in the work of building up the
Church. For example, in Ephesians 4 Paul tells us that not only apostles and pastors build up the
body of Christ (which we know to be the Church—Col. 1:24), but also “prophets,” “evangelists,” and
“teachers” (v. 12). In 1 Corinthians 14:12, Paul widens the scope even more to include all Christians:
“Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church”
(emphasis added).

After responding to all these objections to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, we come out with a picture
that looks a lot like purgatory. It’s a state of existence in the afterlife where souls are being purified
in some fashion based on the works they’ve done in life, whether for good or bad. This state of
existence is not heaven, because the individual going through the purifying fire is suffering loss. And
it can’t be hell, because the individual is guaranteed salvation. That pretty much fits the bill of
purgatory: “[The] final purification of the elect . . . so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter
the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030).
Does Purgatory Deny Christ’s Sacrifice?
By Karlo Broussard

Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie argue that the Catholic dogma of
purgatory “in effect denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death.” They quote biblical passages
that speak of the sufficient nature of Christ’s work on the cross (John 17:4, 19:30; Heb. 10:14) and
conclude, “To affirm that we must suffer for our own sins is the ultimate insult to Christ’s atoning
sacrifice” (emphasis added).

Geisler and MacKenzie object to the idea that Christians experience some negative consequences
for their sins. But they don’t explain why this is an insult to Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Others have
tried, suggesting, for example, that the suffering in purgatory atones for the eternal punishment of
sin, something only Christ can do. Still others have said that suffering for our sins in purgatory
contradicts the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross because Christ’s death makes it unnecessary
for Christians ever to suffer for their sins.

Does either theory have any merit?

Let’s start with the first one: the sufferings in purgatory supposedly atone for the eternal punishment
of sin.

People who believe this are simply mistaken as to what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory
and atonement. Purgatory has to do with freeing us from the “temporal punishment of sin” (CCC
1472), not eternal punishment. Purgatory is a final purification of “the elect” (CCC 1031), those for
whom eternal punishment has already been remitted by Christ’s atoning death.

The soul in purgatory is on its way to heaven, having already received the grace of salvation: fruit of
the sufficient work of Christ on the cross. Purgatory is merely for the sake of making up for temporal
consequences due to sin that remain after death.

Let’s now turn to the second reason why some people have suggested that purgatory undermines
the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross: Christ’s death on the cross makes it unnecessary for
Christians ever to suffer for their sins.

This belief doesn’t match up with the biblical data. Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15,
where Paul describes how the works of a Christian are being tested:

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 is a go-to passage for many Catholics in support of purgatory. But that aside, for our present
purposes it at least portrays a Christian undergoing some form of suffering on account of bad works
performed.

In this passage, Paul is clearly talking about a Christian (building on the foundation of Jesus). The
“wood,” “hay,” and “straw” that are burned up represent the bad works (or sins) for which the
Christian suffers “loss.” That the Christian will be saved “only as through fire” suggests that
Christians will experience negative consequences for their sins.

We could also look at Hebrews 12:6, 10:

The Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. . . . [He]
disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.

Notice that God chastises “every son whom he receives”—that’s to say, God disciplines Christians. But
being “chastised” involves some sort of suffering for bad behavior. The Greek word for “chastise,”
mastigoō, literally means to “lash,” “whip,” “flog,” or “scourge” for the sake of punishment. Therefore,
God wills that Christians suffer for their sins.

The author of Hebrews also tells us the end to which such suffering is ordered: “for our good, that
we may share his holiness.” So God doesn’t punish his children merely to reform external
behavior but for conformity to his holiness. He chastises us so that we may become holy like him.

As in 1 Corinthians, we have a case of a Christian suffering for sins. Hebrews adds the end to which
the suffering is ordered: sanctification. For the author of Hebrews, then, a Christian suffering for sins
in order to be sanctified and the sufficient work of Christ on the cross are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, it’s because of Christ’s sacrifice for us that we can be sanctified (made holy) through our
suffering in the first place. Without Christ’s death on the cross, our suffering for past sins would be
to no avail.

And just as Christ’s death on the cross makes sanctification through suffering possible in this life, so
too it makes possible our final sanctification in the next. As Jimmy Akin puts it, “His [Jesus] sufferings
paid the price for us to be sanctified, and his sufferings paid the price for the whole of our
sanctification—both the initial and final parts.”

Purgatory doesn’t contradict the sufficiency of Christ’s death on the cross. It depends on it.