Joshua Infantado Tried to Debunk Purgatory

He admits* these are six Bible passages we Catholics use to prove Purgatory, giving explanations for each:

• 2 Maccabees 12:39-46: Prayers for the dead suggest an intermediate state where souls can benefit from such prayers.
• 2 Timothy 1:18: Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus indicates a belief that the dead can be helped by the prayers of the living.
• Matthew 12:32: Jesus mentions that some sins will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come,” implying post-death purification.
• Luke 23:43: Jesus tells the thief on the cross that he will be in Paradise, which some interpret as an intermediate state before Heaven.
• 1 Corinthians 3:11-15: Describes a process where believers’ works are tested by fire after death, which aligns with the purifying process of purgatory.
• Hebrews 12:29: Refers to God as a “consuming fire,” symbolizing the purification process.

He could have omitted Luke 23:43, according to us, Purgatory is not paradisal, and Abraham's bosom was above Purgatory in Sheol. The thief was going to be where the poor Lazarus had been prior to Jesus raising him, and as Jesus was going to be there too, that was paradisal. Purgatory remains where it is, but the souls in Abraham's bosom are in the meantime taken up to Heaven, but this only happened after Jesus' resurrection.

We usually tend to explain John 20:17 as referring to the last moment Jesus was seen on Earth before lifting up these souls into Heaven, and that the same day, before further appearances on Earth during forty days.

Now, he pretended that Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. Here it is:

And when thou goest with thy adversary to the prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavour to be delivered from him: lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite
[Luke 12:58-59]

Here is his comment:

No, Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. This verse is often cited in discussions about purgatory, but it does not explicitly refer to the concept. The context of Luke 12:59 is about making peace with your enemy.

While the context indeed involves making peace with one's enemies, Joshua is providing no interpretation compatible with his Thnetopsychist position. Some Orthodox who deny Purgatory refer this to Hell, "the catch 22 is, you can never pay the last mite" ... but as Joshua is a Thnetopsychist, he cannot take this view. So, how does the Catholic view fit making peace with one's enemies? Well, some sins are forgiven us because we have forgiven our enemies.

What did Joshua say about 2 Maccabees 12?

The Book of Maccabees is not included in the canon of the inspired Word of God for a reason. It contains teachings that contradict the Bible’s core messages.

He doesn't specify which ones, nor how the core messages are supposed to be proven in ways that show them contradicting either of the two books of Maccabees.

The non-inclusion is not an originally Christian one, it was first a Jewish one, after they had rejected Christ (meaning Romans 3:2 no longer applies to them), then a Protestant one (in misapplication of Romans 3:2).

What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them
[Romans 3:1-2]

This refers to the division of Jew and Gentile still predominating in St. Paul's day, not to the only beginning division between Jew and Christian. At this time, the Jewish canon was not closed as to the Ketuvim, and was only closed (with exclusion of I and II Maccabees and a few more) after the rejection of Christ, making them depositaries of the words of God no more.

For example, 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 discusses praying for the dead, a practice that has roots in pagan traditions rather than biblical teachings.

That pagans did a thing before Jews and Christians doesn't prove it wrong. If pagans did a thing condemned in the Bible and later some Jews, and after the apostasy of Jews some Christians, but not all, came to do that, that would be a wrong thing. But pagans are not wrong about everything, and therefore pagan pioneering of a practise doesn't prove the practise wrong.

Claiming that purgatory is true because early Jews believed in it is a weak argument, as the Jews were not always faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Old Testament frequently recounts their departure from God and involvement in idolatry.

Now, this is a very interesting thing. Clearly, the idea of praying for the dead was pretty constant between the time of II Maccabees and Rabbi Akiba. This includes the time of Our Lord's public ministry. In certain things where they clearly departed from the law, like the issue of Corban vs the normal way of honouring Father and Mother, Jesus did reprove them.

If the practise existed in Jesus' time, if Jesus condemned practises that contradicted the law, and if it contradicted the law, why did He not condemn it? If Joshua goes like "oh, maybe He did condemn it, but it just didn't make the way into a Gospel" why so if God Who knows all of time could foresee the Church going wrong? Especially, as Jesus clearly didn't foresee the Church as a whole going wrong (Matthew 28:16—20).

Now, unlike the Reformers, Joshua Infantado tries to disprove Purgatory by Thnetopsychism. He tries to support that with the Bible.

First item:
The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:20]

This does not refer to extinction of the soul, but to its spiritual death, or one could say that in the context of OT death penalty, all punishments by God were spoken of in analogy with death penalty and "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die" means no one else will be lapidated for a specific persons crime against the law. But to return to spiritual death, Adam's soul spiritually died the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, even if he still had 930 years to live before he died. Spiritual death is something other than extinction of the soul.

Second item:
Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment
[John 5:28-29]

We agree** that our bodies will resurrect and that there will be a public and visible judgement and that bodies will go where souls already are, Heaven or Hell. This does not disprove the particular judgement of each souls directly after death, nor that some judged for glory are judged to a delay first, which is called Purgatory.

The rest of his article involves lots of generalities that are not quite to the point.

• "No One Can Work Out Your Salvation for You" ... "One person cannot perform good works and credit them to another." — Does not follow. If someone in the early Church did not complete a penance, but died first, someone else was likely to take up the parts that were lacking. Now, each must certainly perform some good work, if only to be baptised. As that is done passively, children also can be baptised.
  
  
• "No one can save you but God" — also, no one could spare Sodom but God. However, we see that God would, conditionally, have spared Sodom, due to two conditions fulfillable by men:
  • the prayer of Abraham
  • the presence of ten just in Sodom.
  
  
  The analogy to the ten just would be dying in peace with God, dying in a state of grace. But the analogy to the prayer of Abraham would be the prayers for someone's release from Purgatory.
  
  
• "Misinterpreted Bible Verses" — Joshua Infantado refuses to provide a correct interpretation that doesn't include Purgatory. And still does include all of the truth in the verses.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hedwig of Poland***
16.X.2024

(15.X) Cracoviae, in Polonia, natalis sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissse, quae, pauperum obsequio dedita, etiam miraculis claruit; et a Clemente Quarto, Pontifice Maximo, Sanctorum numero adscripta est. Ipsius autem festivitas sequenti die celebratur.
(16.X) Sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissae, quae pridie hujus diei obdormivit in Domino.

* His article is on this link:
Becoming Christians: Is Purgatory in the Bible?
https://becomingchristians.com/2024/08/07/is-purgatory-in-the-bible/

** Back in the day certainly Albigensians and probably Waldensians too didn't believe in the resurrection of the body. It was us Catholics who defended that.

*** Speaking of II Maccabees, chapter 15 endorses that saints, in the afterlife, pray for us. If in Luke 16 Our Lord didn't intend to give the impression Abraham could still pray for things in the afterlife, it's very curious He gave an example which, given such beliefs already existing, would have been prone to misunderstanding in His day.

Has Gavin Ortlund Proven Apostolic Succession (in the technical sense) wrong?

According to* Ortlund, the term Apostolic succession as understood by Catholics and Orthodox says:

1. without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism) or hold authoritative office in the Church;
2. only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Apostles.

Now, Ortlund argues from St. Clement of Rome and from St. Jerome that two and three are false. Therefore, he considers, the whole thing is contrary to tradition and therefore it is false.

Let me first argue where I think he gets the concept wrong, giving the correct definitions.

1. Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on;
2. probably only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this or at least some distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Twelve Apostles. Simple priests are successors of the Seventy-Two Apostles.

In other words, Jesus ordained (Holy Thursday) and consecrated (evening of Resurrection Sunday, except Thomas Didymus) the Twelve, and the Twelve then ordained (but did not necessarily consecrate) the Seventy-Two.

Now, I'll admit that in the New Testament it is difficult to find Bishops distinguished from Priests in that precise terminology. I would argue that the word Bishop in the NT usually means Priest. There are several different terms for Bishop and Bishop isn't one of them. Someone has argued that St. John the Gospeller being called Presbyter argues this was originally one of the words for Bishop, but if Father Jean Colson is correct he was not the son of Zebedee, then he may have been called Presbyter rather than Episcopus because he was not a bishop.

The NT words for Bishops, not all of which imply everyone so designated is a Bishop, are:

• Apostle (but between Andronicus and his wife Junia, she was not a Bishop, though both are "of note among the apostles"), Twelve, Seventy-Two (most of which would have been elevated to Bishops), others (Sts. Paul and Barnabas)
• Evangelist
• Prophet (but some prophets and especially prophetesses were not Bishops)
• Angel (Apocalypse 2 and 3)
• "thou" (St. Paul in adressing Sts. Titus and Timothy)

What do we make of Sts. Clement and Jerome?

St. Clement supported the two-fold authority of Bishop and Deacon with a Scripture which doesn't seem to exist. That's what Gavin Ortlund claims. This refers to First Clement chapter 42:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

I had a hard time to localise the Scripture in question. The direct quote gave searches to First Clement. It's not in a standard version of the Bible. Here is the first hit that seemed to localise the quote:

The Willard Preacher : The Authority of the Church
http://thewillardpreacher.com/for-orthodox-and-inquirers/the-church-fathers-speak/the-authority-of-the-church/

It says:

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Is. 60:17, LXX)

Now, what do I find in the LXX version of Ellopos?

ISAIAH / ΗΣΑΪΑΣ 60
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=60

And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.

καὶ ἀντὶ χαλκοῦ οἴσω σοι χρυσίον, ἀντὶ δὲ σιδήρου οἴσω σοι ἀργύριον, ἀντὶ δὲ ξύλων οἴσω σοι χαλκόν, ἀντὶ δὲ λίθων σίδηρον. καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

It would seem the papacy was temporarily in an error about how many degrees the office has, probably because "dikaiosyne" could give rise to a scribal error with "diakonos" ... and this was the text the Pope had. Or he could have misquoted from memory. He certainly didn't possess a Gideon Bible with lots of bookmarks where he could turn the pages until he knew what he was consulting. That's not how they did back then.

I think someone very quickly gave him a better text, discretely so as not to detract from his authority (a kind of respect I do not owe Gavin Ortlund), and no future Pope repeated it. Or, as said, no body cared that he had made a slight misquote. It could be a conflation of two quotes, like we find in the NT.

But so far this makes it look that Gavin Ortlund understands St. Clement correctly as to this passage. Not necessarily. You see, the word "priest" or "presbyter" is mentioned both before and after this. And it would be strange if a Church Father considered an OT prophecy as a direct blueprint for Church structure. Different aspects about Christ, about Mary and notably also about the Church are spread all over the Old Testament. And the context where St. Clement mentions these two offices, not only does he not specify that they are the two only offices, but he even gives a clue why this would not be so:

they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe

It is very likely that the Apostles could very well have known about three offices and even so have ordained only two. You see, a Bishop need not be an Apostle to ordain a priest. Once you have set up Bishops and Deacons, the Bishops can go on to chose the future Priests from among the Deacons. For that matter, a Bishop and a Deacon would be the Liturgic Minima of the Church. In some cases, in some Churches, one could have temporarily dispensed with having priests who weren't also Bishops, just so as to be on the safe side in case the Monarchic bishop should be the one martyred and surrounding ones unable to come, and in some Churches, even Rome, one could have forgot that this was the case, considered a two-fold office as the normal thing and have lived through a restoration locally as if it were a novum, though not a resisted one. This kind of Church could be where the informants of St. Jerome came from.

But, suppose again Gavin Ortlund pretends this is guess work and prefers his own guess work (or that of the seminary he was to) and insists that Priests and Bishops were the same thing for St. Clement of Rome, he swears till his face is blue that this is what the good and adequate art of text analysis (without historic context) exacts for First Clement, even if that is unjust to the rambling and unsystematic approach of ancient styles, very unacademic by modern standards, so what?

It still doesn't dispense with point one:

Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on.

In fact, Albigensians were claiming Apostolic Succession for the Consolamentum of the Perfecti. This was probably entirely fraudulent, and at least cannot be historically traced. I think Waldensians may be making a similar claim. The idea of making Apostolic Succession dispensable came with the Reformation.

Neither making Presbyters successors of the Twelve (probably taken from sources saying they are successors of "the Apostles" in the sense of the Seventy-Two), nor pretending all of the Apostolic era saw Presbyters and Bishops as the same thing (essentially more like Bishops, since able to ordain), would dispense with it. It would either mean people who had been ordained with no power to ordain and consecrate weren't receiving the power to forgive sins or celebrate the Eucharist either, or it would, more probably, mean that normal Catholic priests ignore a power of ordination that actually resides in them. In fact, some Catholics have theorised that a Presbyter can ordain and consecrate, if he has the dispensation of the Pope, but otherwise his powers in this respect are hampered, and "Pius XIII" (who got no successor after he died) actually tried to access this way to the episcopal office, namely by "papally" giving dispensation to the one other priest involved there. I reckon him as not the back then real Pope, because he has no successor and he tried to rival an already extant Michael I. But even so, people on a "desert" island could not access the Eucharist prior to praying for rescue or for a priest to share their isolation.

In fact, decisively for me, we do not just have Apostolic Succession from the Apostles, but also Apostolic Tradition. This doesn't mean digging up the earliest possible post-NT author and pitting him against everyone after him, it means that the collective of successors of the Apostles are not capable of all erring on an important matter. In the absence of a parallel tradition featuring the idea that Luther simply for being a priest could also ordain, the idea of Presbyterian Protestantism (which is also part of the theory, though not the obvious show, of Episcopal Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians and Methodists) is a novum. And as such an error. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, perhaps there is also a Syriac anto-Nestorian but non-Chalcedonian communion, all distinguish bishops from priests. So, whichever of these be the true Church, this needs to be the rule of the Church.

His real beef with Catholicism is probably the Inquisition, and especially the death of Tyndale, which I have commented on on another post.** Or the exclusivism of Catholicism. "Why can't I be saved, if I disagree? Why can't we be Church, if we disagree? Is God that stingy?" For the latter it's simply a question of God keeping His Church visible. This post is about an item where Eastern Orthodox and so on are NOT wrong, and where "witness of the (older) heretics" is valuable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dionysius the Areopagite
9.X.2024

* I would say "passim" but if I missed him making contrary statements, please tell me. Latest item I looked at may have been this one:

Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?
Truth Unites | 19 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TItkYgnWec

** It contains a link to his video, it's this one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tyndale
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/10/tyndale.html