In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Karlo Broussard sits down with Cy Kellett to tackle every major objection to the purgatory we receive in our call in show.

Transcript:

Even though I already believed in it at the beginning, my fake disbelief in purgatory is weakening today. Objections to purgatory with Dr. Karlo Broussard. Dr. Karlo Broussard is the author of a whole bunch of books, including Purgatory Is For Real Good News about the Afterlife for those who Aren’t Perfect yet, and his latest book, the Saints Pray for How the Christians in Heaven Help Us Hear our on earth. Dr. Broussard, welcome.

Cy. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be on with you, my friend.

My hope would be that at the end of this hour, someone for whom purgatory is an obstacle or a stumbling block or a problem for their relationship with the Catholic Church will say, well, you know what? There’s reasonable answers for this. And it’s actually. I mean, the truth is, it is good news. Now, you know, I accept the good news of purgatory, and I accept it as good news, but I will be your objector today. I will be your interlocutor. And so the first, most obvious objection against purgatory, it’s just not in the Bible. You don’t find purgatory in the Bible.

Yeah. So my first question would be, are you seeking for the word purgatory in the Bible or the theology in the Bible? And, of course, you would probably answer as the interlocutor, both. And, well, with regards to the first question of whether the word itself is in the Bible, the answer is no. There is no place where the word purgatory is used. But that’s not a big deal because the word Trinity is not used in the Bible. Several other theological terms that we use to describe Christ, like hypostatic union, is not in the Bible. So the question of whether a particular theological term is used in the Bible is irrelevant to the question. The real question is, is the theology in the Bible? Is the reality of purgatory in the Bible? Now, even that question right there gives many reason to pause to ask the more fundamental question, well, do we actually need revelation of purgatory in the Bible in order to believe it. Could we believe it on account of, say, sacred tradition as opposed to Scripture? And of course, as a Catholic, we would answer that question. Yes, we could. So there’s no absolute need, at least for us as a Catholic, to show the reality of Purgatory in the Bible, since we could believe it on account of sacred tradition and the authority of the Church teaching us as such. But whenever there is evidence for a theological belief or a reality, then we want to share that evidence. And so to the question of where’s Purgatory in the Bible within our Christian tradition, theologians have appealed to several texts, one of which is most clear in my opinion, and that’s 1 Corinthians, chapter 3, verses 11 through 15, where St. Paul describes how one has built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, and the works of with which he built upon that foundation of Christ will be tested on the day which for Paul is the day of judgment, which according to Hebrews 9:27, comes after death. So Paul is describing a post mortem state of existence. And Paul describes for us how the works of the person who has built on the foundation of Jesus will be tested by quote, unquote, fire, which is a image, an image or a motif that suggests purification. And if the works are gold, precious stones or silver, and the works survive, the individual will receive a reward. But if those works are wood, hay and straw, which signifies or represents not so good works, sins, then that individual, Paul says, will suffer loss and notice suffering loss on account of bad works. That’s the essence of punishment. Yet Paul says that particular individual will be saved as through fire. And so when we see this passage, when we approach this passage, we discover that Paul is describing a post mortem state of existence insofar as he calls it the day of a Christian, of someone who has died in friendship with Christ. Because Paul says they built on the foundation of Jesus and, and Paul says explicitly they are saved, but so it cannot be hell. Yet sigh. This postmortem state of existence cannot be heaven either. Because Paul is saying if there are bad works, the individual suffers loss on account of those bad works. Well, there are no bad works in heaven, nor is there any suffering in heaven. So this post mortem state of existence cannot be heaven, nor can it be hell. What is it? A postmortem state of existence where a saved individual is being purified or tested. That’s what we call purgatory.

So there it is, right there.

First Corinthians 3, 11, 15.

All right, so you found purgatory in the Bible in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter three. And some people will respond to that. But Paul doesn’t say a person is tested by fire. Paul teaches that works are tested by fire.

Yeah, this is a great question. In fact, Sy, I had this very question posed to me just a few nights ago when I was doing our adult nachos, remember our nachos group, our adult apologetics group study in my home. We had about six Protestants there join us that evening. And one Protestant in particular had the topic of purgatory had come up, I appealed to First Corinthians 3. And so he countered and said, well, Paul is just saying the works are being tested. You’re assuming that the person is being tested by the fire and concluding thereby that he’s undergoing some kind of post mortem purification. It is true that Paul does affirm that the works are being tested in the fire. However, it is not true that Paul says nothing about the person being tested by the fire, because in verse 15, Paul writes that he himself will be saved, but only as quote, unquote, through fire. So in this text, where Paul is describing what’s happening in this postmortem state of existence, he envisions the individual himself as going through the fire, thereby indicating to us that Paul envisions the person being tested by the fire. Now, my second response here, psy. Is that this particular objection that the works are being tested by the fire in a way that’s separate from the individual, that presupposes a flawed understanding of the human person. In a classical view of the human person, our works are choices. The choices that we make, and of course, the external behaviors that we engage in in virtue of the wheel that we choose to do, those are actions that are proceeding from the individual. It’s not that the works are subsisting or existing in and of themselves as some entity apart from the person. The works are coming from the person. And those works actually determine the very moral quality of the person. And so, given that traditional understanding of the human being and the relation that I as the person have to my works, it’s unthinkable to suggest that the works could be tested and not the individual person. Even just from a philosophical perspective, we can see that that’s absurd. But rather, from this classical view of the human person, we can see that if Paul is describing works as being tested here, well, then the person is being tested. And so we can affirm both the works are tested. Yes, but that is not to be interpreted as a testing that the person is not going through, first of all on account of this presupposed philosophical understanding of the human person. But secondly, that Paul explicitly tells us that the individual is saved as through fire, and so the person is tested by the fire. And given that fire is an image throughout the Bible to suggest purification, we can conclude that this individual is being purified. Especially in light of the fact that Paul says the not so good works represented by wood, hay and straw are. Are burned up, indicating that they’re no longer present there in the individual, qualifying the individual and determining the moral character. So if the bad works are burned up, that is purged, then it would follow that the person whose works they were is now purged as well, and therefore made holy.

Another maybe biblical place that people go to. Matthew, chapter 12, verses 32, where Jesus talks about the unforgivable sin not being forgiven in this age or in the age to come. Here’s the objection. But all Jesus meant by this is that the unpardonable sin is never forgiven, as Mark’s version makes clear in chapter three, verse 29.

Okay, so let me set it up just very briefly for our listener’s sake. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus says the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come. And Catholics appeal to this text and see in it an implication that there are some sins that could be forgiven in the age to come, just not this one, namely the sin against the Holy Spirit. That’s the logical implication of Jesus statement. Now, this counter argument that you’ve just suggested is that, well, in Mark 3:29, Mark just simply records Jesus saying that this particular sin was will never be forgiven, right? It’s an eternal sin. And so that’s all Matthew. That’s all Jesus means as recorded in Matthew’s version. Not some sort of logical implication that some sins can be forgiven in the afterlife, which, if that’s what Jesus was intending, then we at least have some aspect of the doctrine of purgatory, since the doctrine of purgatory involves the guilt of venial sin can be remitted in the afterlife. Now, in response here, it is true that Mark 3:29 has Jesus saying this sin is never forgiven. Only Matthew includes this extra tidbit of information about this sin not being forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come. And so that raises a very interesting question. Why would Matthew include this extra tidbit of information whereas Mark doesn’t? Well, Sy, I think the answer becomes clear when we consider the Jewish theological milieu in which Jesus is giving this teaching and to whom Matthew is writing. As we know Matthew’s writing to a Jewish audience according to the Jews of the time of Christ, we have evidence from second Maccabees, chapter 12, that Jews believe that some sins could be remitted in the afterlife. The classic text of second Maccabees 12, right around verse 46, Judas Maccabeus and his soldiers, they fight a battle. Some of his soldiers fall dead. They discover these, what is called amulets of jamnio in their coat pockets. And so Judas Maccabeus and his surviving comrades pray that the sins of their fallen comrades would be remitted. And and they take up a collection to send to the temple to have a sacrifice offered for the atonement of their sins. So notice this is a window into the Jewish theological milieu right before the time of Christ, and reasonably at the time of Christ, that some sins could be remitted in the afterlife. And even if our Protestant friends do not accept Sekir Maccabees as inspired, which they don’t, they still can look to it as a historical testimony of what the Jews would have believed about sins being remitted in the afterlife. Now sigh with that knowledge, we come back to Matthew 12:32, and Jesus says this particular sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come. Why would Matthew record this extra tidbit of information? Reasonably, the answer is that he is preempting the logical question that the Jews would have been asking in their minds. When Jesus says this sin will not be forgiven in this age, what would they have logically asked, well, Jesus, what about the next age? What about in the afterlife? And they would have asked that because they already believe some sins can be remitted in the afterlife. And so, in order to preempt that question and not leave them questioning, Matthew includes that extra tidbit that this sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come. The implication being that some sins can be remitted in the afterlife. And given that Jesus gives us this teaching, it follows that Jesus is affirming this Jewish theological belief that some sins can be remitted in the afterlife. And if Jesus is affirming that some sins can be remitted in the afterlife, well then he’s affirming at least one aspect of the doctrine of purgatory, a post mortem state of final purification of at least venial sins for those who die. In friendship with Christ and this state, neither being heaven nor hell.

This is one. Here’s a tough one I think, is that again, it has to do with St. Paul. So much of the conversation about we get into the Gospels and all that, but St. Paul seems to be a locus of much of the conversation about purgatory. But Paul says he wants to be absent from the body and present to the Lord. So if being absent from the body means being present to the Lord, then he doesn’t mention an intermediate step there.

There’s no room or space for a final purification of God’s elect.
Now. Here’s the short answer. Well, first of all, the passage that this objection is appealing to is Second Corinthians, chapter 5, verse 8. But here’s the short answer. Paul does not say to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. If Paul, if Paul were to say that, then there would be no room for purgatory. But that’s not what Paul says. Would you like to hear what Paul says?

Sigh Yes, I would like to hear what Paul says.

All right, here we go.
He says we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. That’s a big difference.
For example, if I were to say, you know what? Si. As good as, as much as I love you, man, and I enjoy talking to you on the air and Catholic Answers live, I would rather be away from the studio and at home with my wife and five kids.
Maybe watching the Chosen or something.
We could talk about that later. So I would rather be away from the studio.
And at home with my wife and kids. Does that mean to be away from the studio is to be at home with my wife and five kids?

No, it does not. Because you got to drive home. You might have to stop for gas.

Absolutely. I might have to go to Walmart or something. Groceries. Because Jacqueline says, hey, I need you to go pick up these things at this grocery store.

It just means you prefer one state to the other. It doesn’t say that those are the only two states that you could be.

Absolutely. So once we clarify exactly what Paul is saying, then we can see that Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 5, 8 in no way necessarily excludes a post mortem final purification of God’s elect. It does not teach that for the justified to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord, thereby allowing for a post mortem state of existence of God’s elect. That’s not heaven yet. And we call that purgatory. So Second Corinthians 5, 8 does not serve as a defeater of the doctrine of purgatory. And I deal with this in greater detail in my book, Purgatory is for real. This is one of the main objections, the immediacy of heaven objection, as it’s called, that many Protestants will appeal to to try and refute the Catholic understanding of purgatory. There are some other passages as well, but 2 Corinthians, chapter 5, verse 8 is normally the go to passage.

All right, But I got a follow up to that. And this has to do with something Jesus says, not something Paul said. And it would seem to be. It would seem to suggest an immediacy of heaven, or at least paradise in the crucifixion of Jesus with the one called the Good Thief who defends Jesus. And Jesus takes this, I think the correct understanding of that is as a testament of faith, and says to the Good Thief, today you will be with me in paradise. Well, where’s purgatory in that?

Yeah. So sigh. I’m gonna invite you to be the student here a little bit. All right. A little Socratic method. All right. What are you assuming paradise means here in the question?

Is this gonna be on the test? This is what I always ask as a student. Is this gonna be on the test? All right. Paradise, Heaven.

Yeah, that’s right. So notice that assumption in the question. But that’s. That assumption can be reasonably challenged that paradise doesn’t necessarily mean heaven, such that the good thief is going to receive heaven immediately after he dies. Why can we challenge that assumption? Because paradise most likely refers to. To Abraham’s bosom In Hebrew, she. Oh, and Greek, Hades, the abode of the dead, where the righteous souls dwell, which Jesus identifies as Abraham’s bosom in Luke chapter 16 in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus dies and enters into Abraham’s bosom. And as the Church teaches in paragraph 633 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is to those souls in the abode of the dead, in Abraham’s bosom, that Jesus descends and makes himself manifest to them so they can know who their Messiah is and thereby enter into heaven with him upon Christ’s ascension. So once we clarify that meaning of paradise and we see that Jesus is not promising him immediate entrance into heaven subsequent to death, well, then we can see that this doesn’t serve as a defeater of purgatory, because it may very well be that this good thief needs to undergo some degree of final purification once he dies, whether before he enters into Abraham’s bosom or before he goes into heaven after being in Abraham’s bosom. Those are two real possibilities. And so what Jesus tells the good thief, that doesn’t disprove the doctrine of purgatory. Now here’s an interesting point, Psy. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, we concede that paradise means heaven, okay. And that Jesus. And let’s even further. Well, first of all, let’s respond to that. Let’s assume this means heaven. It doesn’t follow that the good thief would not have to undergo a final purification after death, since his final purification could be instantaneous in the very instant of the moment subsequent to death and then enter into heaven. So it’s not necessary that he would have to go through some long, enduring final purification. That’s not part and parcel of Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching allows for the possibility of an instantaneous purification for some and a non instantaneous purification for others. And the good thief just could have been one example or instance of an instantaneous purification. Right?
Watch this, Psy. Even further, let’s concede, for argument’s sake, paradise means heaven. And let’s even concede that the good thief does not undergo a postmortem final purification. Would this disprove purgatory? And the answer is no. And here’s the reason why I ask you, Psy, is it possible, according to Church teaching, that some can die with such a fervent degree of charity and bypass purgatory? Is that possible?

Yes, sure. We know that that’s a part of the teaching on the saints.
Is that some may have done that.

Yeah. The Catechism teaches us, if my memory serves me correctly, paragraph 1472, I think it talks about how it’s possible for one to die with such a fervent degree of charity that they can bypass purgatory. So if that’s the case, well, then this text doesn’t disprove the Catholic understanding of purgatory because the good thief would just simply be one example or instance of what the Church believes that he did not need a postmortem final purification.
Oh, yeah, that doesn’t.
But that doesn’t mean Psy won’t need it.
Or Carlo won’t need it.
It just indicates to us that he is one example of someone who didn’t need the postmortem final purification on account of his fervent charity. And, psy, this actually makes sense because as you just noted, when the good Thief is asking our Lord. He comes to our Lord’s defense, and he says, we are justly receiving our punishment, talking to the bad thief on the other side of Jesus. And then he asked, our Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And it’s to that that Jesus responds with this statement. So notice the good thief on the cross. He is expressing sorrow. He is expressing love. And it could very well be that the suffering he is enduring on the cross and the sorrow for sin that he has and the love for Christ that he has is so intense and so fervent that there’s no need for any final purification, because the final purification has taken place for him or on the cross, such that when he dies, he’s good. He doesn’t need any purification because it was all taken care of on the cross before death.

All right, I’m starting to weaken. I’m starting to. Even as you’re. Even. Even though I already believed in it at the beginning, my fake disbelief in purgatory is weakening. But Sharon’s question brought up a question for me that I don’t actually know the answer to. I’m not asking this because I know the answer. I want you to. But you’ve studied purgatory a lot. Like, there’s one way of thinking about purgatory. Like, it’s like. I don’t know, like, it’s like an infirmary where there’s. Everybody’s got to stay in there until they’re done, and then they can be released, so to speak. But another way of thinking of it is it would be different for everybody. Like, purgatory would be personal and particular to each. I’m just curious how you, after all your studies of purgatory, envision it. Is it particular to each person? You know, a different experience for each person? Or is it basically, everybody goes to the hospital and hang. You know, you get what you need, and then you’re released?

Yes. So within the theological tradition, the answer to your question would be yes. It’s different for every soul because it’s proportioned to the remnants of sin that the soul enters into the afterlife with. For some souls, it’s going to be a lot of debt, of temporary punishment due for past forgiven sins. And for others, less debt. And it may very well be for some souls that all they have is just a slight defilement of venial sin, which is immediately purified in the final purification, and they go to heaven. And so not only is the duration of the purification lessened due to the less remnants of sin, Namely, defilement of venial sin. Maybe for one venial sin, but also the intensity of the purification is going to be less for that soul, as opposed to, say, a soul of someone who is an atrocious murderer all of their life, say, and they convert on their deathbed and then they die. Well, then they’ve got a lot of making up to do. And let’s say that their sorrow for the murders and the sin is not quite as fervent as, say, the good thief on the cross, but maybe they legitimately converted, like, I’m sorry, Jesus, I repent. And so their experience of that final purification may very well be more intense than others. And even the duration of the purification would be longer, quote, unquote. However, we measure that in the afterlife than another. So consider me versus I don’t know, you. Sigh. So when I die, I’m going to probably have to undergo some pretty intense and durational purification. But for you, si, because you’re such a holy man, I love this.

I love this example. You’re so much better than Trent Horn.

Whenever you die, let’s say right before you die, and let’s say you’re laying on your deathbed and you’re kind of suffering a little bit, you’ve been doing really well with your suffering and offering it up, man. And you’re like a good Catholic redemptive suffering. And right before you die, you go, oh, man, I’m tired of this stuff. And you gripe or complain.
Right, right.
Venial sin, slight defilement, that’s going to impede entrance into heaven, that’s going to have to get taken care of. But for you, instantaneous purification. For me, I’ve done a lot of complaining in my life and a lot graver sins. And so my purification is going to be more intense and longer in duration than you. Sigh. Having to undergo your purification. So you can see, given that theological rationale, why the theologians would conclude within the tradition that for some souls it’s going to be more so than others, and it’s goin... Read more on Catholic.com