purgatory

[nini]

as a former catholic, I am attending my local Episcopal church--I have been reading "Forward Day by Day" and today's prayer intention urges us to pray for the Archbishops of Canterbury from today back to the first bishop--my question is: If
Episcopalians do not believe in purgatory, why are we asked to pray for these dead?

[christian]

While Anglicanism in general does not necessarily include the concept of purgatory, it does not necessarily exclude it either. This is one of the foundational concepts of Anglicanism.

On the other hand, if you were to have a true belief in purgatory and expressed it to the TECites, who in their lefty enthrallment have seized the levers of power in TEC and are in the process of consolidating that power come hell or high water, you would be met with a vague smile and mumbled assent to your (weird) views. And if you were to actually suppose that there was some less than happy result in Heaven, such as purgatory, to sin here on earth you would be derided and condemned as a fool and a bigot.

So the answer is that Anglicanism as it has been practiced for nearly 500 years accepts the concept of purgatory as possibly true, but TEC in its "new thing" left wing bishops know more than The Bible theology deride the concept.

[Sojourner]

From the Articles of Religion

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

[christian]

I was hoping someone would bring that up. So I guess we can assume the the articles of religion are authoritative in determining what is right and wrong.

Hmm, how does this apply to the left-wing philosophy expelling all others in TEC today?

[Sojourner]

Man, for someone with a master's degree and a 140 IQ I find some of your posts rather bizarre.

[Canadian Phil]

Well, Sojourner, you kinda did walk into that one, when you quoted the Articles of Religion to a conservative?

Mind you, you could think the Articles are right here and wrong elsewhere....

Peace,
Phil

[guest]

sojourner & christian - you obviously both have your own agendas but you are certainly no help to an inquirer - incidentally, I am quite familiar with the Articles of Relition, thank you!

[dj]

May 28, 2008 21:34:08 GMT -5 @guest said:

sojourner & christian - you obviously both have your own agendas but you are certainly no help to an inquirer - incidentally, I am quite familiar with the Articles of Relition, thank you!

Dear Guest,

Thank you for "beating me to the punch". I find it unfortunate that folk have become so polarized that they will take any opportunity to promote their agendas and lash out at one another rather than addressing a reasonable question. IMHO, something less than a "Christian" witness.

Before addressing the question on the table, though, let me be clear that I am not now, and have not been for approaching 20 years, an Anglican/Episcopalian. Rather, I am Eastern Orthodox (somewhere to the FAR right, theologically, of Rome) so feel free to interpret what I say in that light.

Now on to the question... to the extent that the "39 Articles" are authoritative (and you will get wildly divergent opinions within Anglicanism on that question), Sojourner is correct that a doctrine of purgatory is condemned... That pretty much describes the "Evangelical" wing of Anglicanism. The "Anglo-catholic" wing, (or at least parts of it) is somewhat more accepting of (or willing to listen to) speculations about such things.

But take your pick... it really doesn't matter in the least. Prayer for the dead does not, in the least, depend on purgatory. Rather, it depends on two questions... one which must be viewed from a human perspective and one which must be viewed from a heavenly one. The "human" question is, "In light of the Resurrection, does death end life?", or is it true, as St. Paul asserts, that "death is dead".

The question that should be viewed from a "heavenly" perspective is, "What is the nature of time?".

If death IS dead, OR if time is a creature, then prayers for the dead make sense. If, on the other hand, the kingdom of death rules AND if time is fundamental to reality rather than a creature, then prayers for the dead are delusional nonsense.

The doctrine of purgatory, by the way, is merely one theory (not a very popular one in the Christian East) that describes what it means for death to be dead.

Cheers,
dj

[Swick]

I've never really heard any explanation in detail about why we pray for the dead, but it's something most Christians have done for centuries--at the very least it comforts the living.

Most Anglicans probably reject the idea of Purgatory as developed by the Roman Catholic Church, a half-way house to Heaven where souls reside for an undetermined period to be purged from their sins, and their stay in this place can be may briefer by the prayers of the living on their behalf; it is this idea that is condemned in the Articles of Religion.

Some people believe in a purgative state; since we all sin, and that people in a sinful state don't enter heaven, they must be purged of their sin, but how this happens isn't really defined-it could be in a second, or longer. At least that's how I've heard it discussed, which to be honest hasn't been very often, since this isn't really an issue to most Anglicans.

[nini]

dj while St. Paul is not one of my favorites, I think the "death is dead" idea in light of the resurrection makes sense to me - thank you.

[Sojourner]

"Well, Sojourner, you kinda did walk into that one, when you quoted the Articles of Religion to a conservative?"

Maybe, Phil, maybe. We'll see.

christian stated: "While Anglicanism in general does not necessarily include the concept of purgatory, it does not necessarily exclude it either. This is one of the foundational concepts of Anglicanism."

We have all been treated to tremendously long discourses outlining a concept of Classical Anglicanism. As I understand from those who espouse it, Classical Anglicanism IS Anglicanism. Along with the writings of certain selected 16th and early 17th century divines, Classical Anglicanism is best expressed in the the Elizabethan Settlement which set forth the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies as Foundational documents . Conservative advocates of Classical Anglicanism would argue that any deviation from the theology expressed in these three documents is, at best, a mis-statement of the faith, at worse, heresy. This is one extreme of the very wide conservative Anglican continuum.

At the other end of the continuum is the Anglo-Catholic party which sought to recapture the Catholicity of the church which they felt had been lost or subverted by the Reformation. Most Anglicans who hold to the doctrine of Purgatory belong to this group.

I posted, without comment, the appropriate article outlining the Classical Anglican statement regarding Purgatory. On it's face, the article flatly repudiates the doctrine of Purgatory. The Articles of Religion are reflective of the beliefs of Anglicanism (and I'm not particularly concerned whether they are or are not) they are authoritative for a significant number of Evangelical Anglicans, an appropriate description of the Church's stand on Purgatory. Thus, an "orthodox" Anglican would vehemently disagree with christian's statement: "While Anglicanism in general does not necessarily include the concept of purgatory, it does not necessarily exclude it either. This is one of the foundational concepts of Anglicanism." To a large number of conservative Anglicans the Articles "necessarily exclude" the concept of Purgatory. In other words, if a conservative Anglican believes in Purgatory, he does so contrary to the clear statement in the Articles. That is why I quoted the Articles.

My characterization of christian's next post as bizarre was based on two of the strangest assertions I have recently seen. The first was "I was hoping someone would bring that up. I was hoping someone would bring that up. So I guess we can assume the the articles of religion are authoritative in determining what is right and wrong.


christian's statement regarding Purgatory certainly implies that the doctrine resides within the boundaries of Anglican belief. As pointed out, for those who believe the Articles, that statement cannot be true. Recognition of Purgatory, is, ipso facto, a denial of the whole truth of the articles. Therefore, it is impossible to "assume the the articles of religion are authoritative in determining what is right and wrong" for Anglicans who believe in Purgatory.

Some conservatives now argue that the placement of the Articles in the Historical Document section of the 1979 BCP was an intentional act by TEC to downgrade the efficacy of the Articles within the doctrine of TEC. If that, indeed, is the conservative position, then the conservative assumption would be that, at the corporate level, one could not currently assume, in the "apostate" condition of TEC, that the Articles were authoritative of anything.

Secondly, since the assumption that everyone in TEC accepted the Articles as being "authoritative" was not true, linking the question, "Hmm, how does this apply to the left-wing philosophy expelling all others in TEC today" made absolutely no sense. I thought it bizarre at the time, and continue to do so.

I was intrigued by nini's observation that christian and I have agendas. I will state the bleeding obvious: everyone has an agenda (although I consider the term to be tinged with psycho-babble connotations and not very accurate). However, nini, so that you don't have to assume or conjur what my agenda is, let me share that with you.

My agenda in posting here is to engage in intellectual debate about religious (particularly from the Anglican historical background). I do it primarily for entertainment value. I enjoy the give and take of the debate. There are times I enjoy being the gadfly and stirring the pot. But, please do not think that if this forum should go away that it would in any way diminish my life. My agenda is not to convince. At the end of the day, I don't believe that I really have that much power as to change someone's mind. Most of the time the forum affords me an opportunity to explore my own framework and ideas. The act of writing them down helps me more than it helps anyone else. However, nini, if you believe you understand my agenda better than I have expressed it, please feel free to share.

[nini]

Sojourner: I will begin with an apology--forgive me if I have offended you. I too enjoy being the gadfly at times. However, I take your answer(s) as something of an intellectual putdown. Again, forgive me if I have read you wrong.

[Guest]

The philosophical idealist might question whether or not heaven, purgatory or hell is just a state within the human mind.

Likewise, the philosophical realist might argue that these three states are but mere shadows of what others want to project on you.

Since, in the Protestant tradition, our religious beliefs are justified by faith alone, we Christians believe what we are told by authority without question.

But in the end, whether heaven, hell or purgatory actually exists at all is a decision that you will have to make on your own using human reason.

[dj]

May 31, 2008 16:00:58 GMT -5 @Guest said:

But in the end, whether heaven, hell or purgatory actually exists at all is a decision that you will have to make on your own using human reason.

Actually, "whether heaven, hell or purgatory actually exists" has absolutely nothing to do with human reason. They either exist (collectively or individually) or they don't.

Human reason might be one tool (but certainly not the only possible tool) to help one decide whether one believes in heaven, hell and purgatory. Other tools one might employ might be sense perception, spiritual perception, prayer, faith, etc.

But whether we believe in the spiritual realms or not, and whether (or not) our spiritual senses are developed enough to aid us in discovering the truth is irrelevent to whether they are real.

cheers,
dj

[angli_fan]

"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?

I believe in Purgatory.

Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the 'Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become.....

The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light'. Religion has claimed Purgatory.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."

- C.S. Lewis, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, chapter 20, paragraphs 7-10, pages 108-109