Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”?

I came across an interesting John Calvin article written by one of the apologists from Catholic Answers: Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”. Let's take a look at their first surprising fact: "Calvin Implicitly Concedes that the Deuterocanon Supports Catholic Teachings."

Quoting a section from Calvin's Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto), the author explains Calvin believed the Apocryphal books clearly taught: purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms. Calvin of course, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. Despite this rejection, Rome's defender states Calvin realized the clarity of these doctrine in the Apocrypha. He states, "John Calvin: Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants." Therefore, this implies:

...if Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then we’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on. That’s pretty huge.

Let's take a closer look at Calvin's text to see if he admits the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) validates Rome's unique doctrines. I contend that the context demonstrates no such thing. Rather, Calvin was of the opinion that the Papacy would read into any portion of the Bible (canonical or not) to make it say what they wanted it to say. The passage below from Calvin is lengthy, and only slightly edited. 

Context

First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others... Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge...for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...

...they devise a most excellent remedy, when they adjudge to themselves the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Who can now imagine any improvidence in them? By one article they have obtained the means of proving what they please out of Scripture, and escaping from every passage that might be urged against them. If Confession is to be proved, they are ready with — “Show yourselves to the priests.” If it be asked, Whether recourse should be had to the intercession of the dead? the passage will immediately occur, “Turn to some one of the saints;” also, “For this every holy man will pray to thee.” Nor will Purgatory be left without a sure foundation, for it is written, “He shall not come out thence till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, anything may be made of anything! When they formerly produced such passages they made themselves ridiculous even to children. Now, if credit is given them, the right of authorized interpretation will remove every doubt. For what passage can be objected to them so clear and strong that they shall not evade it? Any kind of quibble will at once relieve them from difficulty. Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall — Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. If postulates of this kind were given to mathematicians, they would not only make an ell an inch, but prove a mile shorter than an ell, till they had thrown everything into confusion.

What, then, are we to do with this victorious and now, as it were, triumphal Session? Just stand and let the smoke clear away. In regard to Traditions, I am aware that not unfrequent mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it. They only say that certain customs were received from the Apostles. Some of them appear to have that origin, but others are unworthy of it. These touch only upon a few points, and such as might be tolerated. But now we are called to believe, that whatever the Romanists are pleased to obtrude upon us, flowed by tradition from the Apostles; and so shameless are they, that without observing any distinction, they bring into this class things which crept in not long ago, during the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa, (unwritten,) than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, “Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.”

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit! [source]

Conclusion

Granted, Calvin's main argument against the Apocrypha rests on the fact of its spurious canonicity in church history; but the context demonstrates Calvin thought the Council of Trent was interpreting the passages of the Bible the way it needed to in order to substantiate their unique doctrines. Why would Calvin be admitting the Deuterocanon proved Trent's unique doctrines, and then go on to say that Trent treated the text of the Bible like a wax nose ("Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes") bending a passage any way it wanted to? It isn't consistent. 

But maybe Calvin was inconsistent... maybe he really did think the Apocrypha taught purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms, etc.? Let's take one example, Purgatory, by popping over to Calvin's magnum opus (and that which ultimately defines his theology): The Institutes of Christian Religion. There we find Calvin going through all the popular Roman Catholic Biblical proof texts for purgatory. In his treatment of 2 Maccabees 12, Calvin writes of what the passage is actually addressing... and it isn't Rome's doctrine of purgatory:

...[T]he piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem [2 Macc. 12:43]. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased. [Institutes III.5.8].

While Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, he did not write commentaries on the Apocrypha.  Therefore, extracting out Calvin's interpretations of passages from the Apocrypha will be slim. What we find though in the rare instance in which Calvin exegetes an Apocryphal passage, he denies Trent's interpretation.  Thus, the first "surprising fact about John Calvin and the Apocrypha" turns out not to be a fact, and therefore not surprising.

Addendum

Many years ago, I picked up a "four views" book on hell. The person defending the Roman Catholic view ("The Purgatorial view") was Zachary J. Hayes. As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Hayes says modern Roman Catholic exegetes conclude:  

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

Debate on Indulgences

Dr. James White recently debated Roman Catholic Peter D. Williams on Indulgences.  Another one of the lay Roman apologists "who do the heavy lifting" (Matthew Schultz rightly wrote).

"The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons?"  (Matthew Schultz) 

Addendum: (June 30, 2018)   The debate goes to the nature of the gospel in the way Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree with each other, and they also touched on issues like purgatory, church history, Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine, Gottschalk, the development of doctrine, the wrath of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Sola Scriptura and the Canon. Rich in content.

When Dr. White mentioned Semi-Pelagianism and Gottschalk, it reminded me of R. C. Sproul’s analysis of church history how Semi-Pelagianism crept back into the church between the Council of Orange (529 AD) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). 

Thorough video refutation of Purgatory by Keith Thompson

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/purgatory-refuted/

Rome says: Pay Me Now, Pay Me Later

Here's one of the most interesting debate moments between Dr. James White and Father Peter Stravinskas on the topic of purgatory. The entire debate can be found here.

Do Roman Catholics Believe in Ghosts?

"Some visions of ghosts could actually be souls in purgatory that are seeking prayers. We must never forget to pray for our brothers and sisters in purgatory. We should offer our mass to them every time we attend." [source]

When in Rome, make sure to visit the Museum of the Souls of Purgatory. "Located in a small room next to a church, this eerie museum displays objects and photos of objects said to show traces of apparitions who reside in Purgatory."

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism.  This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view  of purgatory:  "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."
Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel. 

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. 

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

Luther's Prayers for the Dead

I recently checked in to see what Crossed the Tiber has posted, and came across this: All Soul's Day. Pray For the Church Suffering. The basic thrust of the post is that praying for the souls in purgatory is an historical practice of the church, the ancient church as well as...

16th century theologians: "Dear God, if the departed souls be in a state that they yet may be helped then I pray that you would be gracious. When you have thus prayed once or twice, then let it be sufficient and commend them unto God." (Martin Luther)

This Luther quote is indeed authentic, however, Luther eventually denied the reality of purgatory, so saying Luther allowed prayers for the dead is not the same thing as Luther allowed prayers for the dead in purgatory. While Luther early on believed in Purgatory, he soon denied it at his Reformation career progressed :

"When in 1518 [Luther] further explained his fifteenth thesis, he remarked: 'I am very certain that there is a purgatory,'... In the Leipzig debate of the following year purgatory was discussed at length...Luther there said he knew that there is a purgatory. The dispute was about the nature of the institution rather than its existence. The 'orthodox' Romanists contended for the meritorious character of the purging. But increasingly Luther could find no room for this figment in Scripture theology. By November 7, 1519, he had progressed far enough to write to Spalatin: 'It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory,' although he had still professed to believe in its existence in February of that year. In fact, also in the following year in 1520, he still holds to it. But thereafter his language becomes different until...he calls it a fabrication of the devil" [Plass, What Luther Says Volume 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 387-388 n.25.

As to the quote in question, it comes from the treatise, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528):

But the pardons or indulgences which the papal church has and dispenses are a blasphemous deception, not only because it invents and devises a special forgiveness beyond the general forgiveness which in the whole Christian Church is bestowed through the gospel and the sacrament and thus desecrates and nullifies the general forgiveness, but also because it establishes and bases satisfaction for sins upon the works of men and the merits of saints, whereas only Christ can make and has made satisfaction for us. As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.” And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and are merely the devil’s annual fair. Nor have we anything in Scripture concerning purgatory. It too was certainly fabricated by goblins. Therefore, I maintain it is not necessary to believe in it; although all things are possible to God, and he could very well allow souls to be tormented after their departure from the body. But he has caused nothing of this to be spoken or written, therefore he does not wish to have it believed, either. I know of a purgatory, however, in another way, but it would not be proper to teach anything about it in the church, nor on the other hand, to deal with it by means of endowments or vigils. Luther, M. (1999, c1961). Vol. 37: Luther's works, vol. 37 : Word and Sacrament III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (37:369). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Don't be confused by Luther's comment about knowing Purgatory "in another way." This other way has nothing to do with the dead or those suffering after they died.

The difference between Crossed the Tiber and Luther certainly becomes apparent when the quote is put back into a larger context. Praying for the souls in purgatory with "vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations" are, according to Luther, "the devil’s annual fair."  In his Preface to the Burial Hymns (1542), he states, "Accordingly, we have removed from our churches and completely abolished the popish abominations, such as vigils, masses for the dead, processions, purgatory, and all other hocus-pocus on behalf of the dead" (LW 53:325).

This doesn't mean that there should not be any funeral services. Commenting on Rachel's tomb (Gen. 35: 20), Luther states:

"The fathers decorated sepulchers magnificently. They did not throw away the dead like the bodies of beasts, but they set up memorials of them for a perpetual and immortal reminder so that they might be testimonies of the future resurrection, which they believed and expected. Therefore funeral ceremonies and the funeral procession are to be retained, and likewise the weeping and sympathy, not that there should be prayers for the dead, as Lyra wishes, or that we should fear death, but rather that in death itself we should learn to exercise faith as it struggles against the terrors of death and think that we indeed die and are buried in dishonor but that we will rise again in glory" (LW 6:273).

The basic thrust of Luther's thought at times is that he won't stop someone for praying for the dead, however sparsely, but linking it to purgatory and the ceremonies and practices that had made it an essential was to be avoided:

But if anyone says: in this way purgatory will also be denied, I answer: if you do not believe in a purgatory, you are not therefore a heretic. The Scriptures know nothing of it. It is better that you disbelieve what is not taught in the Scriptures, than that you reject what is found in the Scriptures. Let the pope and papists be as angry as they will. They have made an article of faith of purgatory because it has brought them the world’s riches—and sent innumerable souls into hell, since they placed their reliance on works and consoled themselves with the thought that works would bring them release. God has given no command concerning purgatory; he has commanded you not to consult the dead nor to believe what they say. Accept God as more reliable and truthful than all angels, and let the pope and his papists keep silence, the more so since their doctrines are lies and deceit which do little to inspire faith in purgatory. I will not stop you if you desire to offer prayers for the dead. In my opinion purgatory is not our common lot, as they teach; I think very few souls get there. Nevertheless, as I said, there is no danger at all for your soul if you do not believe in purgatory. You are not obliged to believe more than what is taught in the Scriptures (LW 52:180).

I can certainly understand why a Roman Catholic would point out the few instances in which Luther allows for praying for the dead. Since it is an important practice in their system in regard to salvation, finding that Luther allowed for it to a degree serves as an apologetic. However, when Luther is placed in his context, and when Romanists are placed in theirs, praying for the dead simply doesn't mean the same thing. Crossed the Tiber concludes by stating of purgatory,

"I am no longer freaked out by it but am thankful to God for his grace and mercy towards us in that we have an opportunity to be purged of the last vestiges of sin that we are attached to before we step into His throne room."

Luther speaks quite differently. Commenting on the death of Electtor Duke John of Saxony, Luther stated:

"It is my hope that we too shall die this way and carry with us to heaven a poor sinner, if only we hold on to this cloak and wrap ourselves in the death of the Son of God and cover and veil ourselves with his resurrection. If we stand firmly upon this and never depart from it, then our righteousness will be so great that all our sins, no matter what they are, will be as a tiny spark and our righteousness as a great ocean, and our death will be far less than a sleep and a dream. Moreover, the shame of our being buried so nastily is covered with a dignity which is called the resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which it is so adorned that the sun is put to shame when it looks upon it and the beloved angels cannot gaze upon it sufficiently. We are graced and adorned with such beauty that all the other uncleanness of our poor body, such as death and the like, are as nothing. Hence, one must look upon a Christian death with different eyes, not the way a cow stares at a new gate, and smells it in a different way, not as a cow sniffs grass, by learning to speak and think of it as the Scriptures do and not considering deceased Christians to be dead and buried people. To the five senses that is the way it appears. As far as they can lead us, it brings only woe. Therefore go beyond them and listen to what St. Paul says here, that they are sleeping in Christ and God will bring them with Christ [as he brought with him the Savior, the devourer of death, the destroyer of the devil]. Learn to comfort yourselves with these words and instil in your hearts the fact that it is far more certain that Duke John of Saxony will come out of the grave and be far more splendid than the sun is now [cf. Dan. 12:3; Isa. 60:19] than that he is lying here before our eyes. This is not so certain as the fact that he will live again and go forth with Christ because God cannot lie. But take it to heart! For he who does not have this comfort can neither comfort himself nor be happy, but the more the Word escapes him the more the consolation also escapes him" (LW 51: 238-239).

The Perspicuity of 2 Maccabees 12 on Purgatory?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 03/03/2009

Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Roman Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes ("a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years" [source]). Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently.

Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.

When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).

On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).

In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, an alleged "Biblical Defense of Catholicism" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock [this link works!]),

"They died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin, like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God."

I'm reminded of a certain Biblical story in which a certain "ark of God'' was about to fall, and a person "reached out toward the ark of God to take hold of it," and God struck him down, and how someone at Catholic Answers would explain this. Regardless, 2 Maccabees says their idolatry caused the loss of their lives (2 Macc. 12:40). The text says nothing about prayers for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection (12:43-45). Further, Catholic apologists have to struggle with historical studies like Jacques Le Goff's The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] in which he points out that "at the time of Judas Maccabeus- around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period- prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews (p. 45).

Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.

Eternal Joy from Mary

"In a devotion passed on by St. Bridget of Sweden, the Blessed Virgin Mary promised to grant seven graces to those who console her by daily meditation on the seven sorrows of her life. Pray one Hail Mary after meditating on each of the Seven Sorrows...

...I have obtained this Grace from my Divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and dolors, will be taken from this earthly life to eternal happiness since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son and I will be their eternal consolation and joy." source

This guy seems pretty stoked about it.

Why Luther Removed 2 Maccabees from the Bible

Over on the Catholic Answers apologetics forum (now defunct), I've spent some time engaging Roman Catholics (and one Lutheran) in a thread entitled, Martin Luther and the Deuterocanonicals. The basic question being asked is: why did Martin Luther remove the Apocrypha from the Bible? 

It didn't take long in the discussion before the standard Roman Catholic answer appeared. According to many Roman Catholics, Luther removed the Apocrypha because it disagreed with his theology. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:46 substantiates such things like Purgatory, and since Luther didn't believe in Purgatory, he removed it.  The second part of this Roman Catholic argument is that Luther was cornered into rejecting 2 Maccabees while debating John Eck on Purgatory. It has become standard now to mention Gary Michuta's argumentation on this from his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger for historical support on: Eck vs. Luther= remove 2 Maccabees.

That awful Luther just couldn't stand Roman doctrines, so he rejected all the Apocryphal books (read: sarcasm). But wait a minute... there are a few other Apocryphal books that go along with 2 Maccabees! I don't think I've ever heard a Roman Catholic explain which Roman Catholic doctrines the other books substantiate purgatory and why Luther rejected them, provoked by purgatory. No, their emphasis is always on Purgatory and 2 Maccabees. There alone a red flag should go up that perhaps the typical Roman Catholic response doesn't match up to historical reality. That Luther may have rejected one book because it taught a distinctly Roman Catholic doctrine doesn't explain why he rejected the other apocryphal books.

One of my favorite monkey wrenches to throw into these types of discussions is the ironic fact that when Luther engaged John Eck on purgatory, he still believed in Purgatory at this time and continued to do so for quite a while after the debate. 

Finally after a few days, a Roman Catholic response with some substance attempted to deal with this. Below is my reply to this response. I first debunked Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's argument, then I touched on the main thrust of the argument directed at my way.

1. Gary Michuta, Luther, and Leipzig
Mr. Michuta's underlying argument against Luther in Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger is as follows. Before the 1519 Leipzig disputation against Roman Cathoic theologian JohnEck, Luther accepted the Apocrypha as authoritatively canonical (p. 247-248). As proof, he notes "In 1518, Luther freely quoted Sirach and Tobit against his Catholic detractors; but by the following year, Luther's view of the Deuterocanon had taken a decidedly negative turn" (p. 248). The event of the following year provoking Luther's change was the Leipzig disputation. During the Leipzig Disputation, Eck cornered Luther by forcing him to deny the canonicity of 2 Maccabees. "Eck appealed to 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a clear and incontestable proof from Scripture that Purgatory exists" (p.249).  He then quotes Luther responding "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate" (p. 249). Michuta concludes, "Like the Marcionites, Ebionities, and Gnostics before him, Luther's theological convictions determined what constituted the canonical Scriptures. Consequently, Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology" (p. 252). Luther simply pulled out Jerome's appeal to the smaller rabbinical Jewish canon in order to deny Purgatory. Reading between the lines, Mr. Michuta is arguing Luther is fundamentally dishonest and simply changed to the smaller canon to just pick and choose his theology and squirm out of Eck's argument.

2. A Response to Gary Michuta's Argument
Contrary to Mr. Michuta's caricature of Luther pre-Leipzig, the reason why Luther could quote Sirach and Tobit is because Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa Ordinaria. This standard source echoed the position of Jerome on the Apocrypha, that the books were of secondary or ecclesiastical canonical status. 

This standard medieval source informed his opinion on the canon. Even the Occamist influence in Luther's early training would have informed him similarly. Mr. Michuta himself notes Occam held to the allowance of reading the Apocrypha, but that the books were not canonical (p. 218).

Therefore, it wouldn't be odd to find Luther familiar with or fluent in the Apocrypha, but that doesn't mean he believed it was canonical scripture. If one reads Luther's preface to the Apocrypha, one will find the actual reasons he classified these books as non-canonical, and those reasons often echo previous voices from church history. What one will find in Luther's writings is that he  approvingly quoted from Sirach and Tobit throughout his career. The same type of citations found in Luther's Resolutions cited by Mr. Michuta are found later in Luther's writings. Mr. Michuta left this fact out or was perhaps unaware of it? If indeed the debate with Eck forced Luther to change his opinion on the Apocrypha, one would expect to find Luther's citations different than previously. What one finds is the exact method of citation from the Apocrypha both before and after Luther's encounter with Eck. Luther's last writings were his Lectures on Genesis. Both Sirach and Tobit are cited by Luther in a very similar way to that in The Resolutions (or as Michuta would say, in a method commensurate with sacred scripture) yet, not considering it canonical scripture.

The approach I take is the exact opposite of Mr. Michuta. I consider Luther fundamentally honest on this issue. He denied the authority of 2 Maccabees to establish doctrine because that was simply how he was trained as a theologian, following in a a tradition which denied the Apocrypha authority to establish doctrine.  Luther provides detailed opinions of the Deuterocanonical books in his biblical prefaces. There is no reason to grant that his entire opinion suddenly shifted because of Eck at Leipzig.  Luther quoted from the Apocrypha throughout his entire career, in a manner consistent with the views expressed in his Biblical prefaces. Mr. Michuta's paradigm has no way to account for this.

3. Catholic Answers
Returning to this Catholic Answers discussion. The thread begins with, "I've heard many of the Catholic apologists on this site make the claim that Martin Luther 'removed' the DC's because they provided biblical evidence for Catholic beliefs that Luther disagreed with (purgatory, etc)." Then added later, "For Catholics, I would hope we have some historical evidence to back up the claim that Luther did it for the reasons we say he did it."One Roman Catholic particpant found it hard to believe anyone would dispute that Luther removed the Apocrypha because it provided Biblical evidence for Roman Catholic beliefs: "I would think the story plausible enough to be true. It explains why the OT and NT canon became such a hot topic for Luther. If a part of Scripture didn't agree with his theology, a good strategy would be question the Book's authenticity." He also quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia stating, "In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the books was outside the Canon." Another contributor states,

"One of the reasons that Luther is perceived to have done this is detailed in the book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. (which I happen to think is the best apologetics book published this century so far) In it he details an account of where Luther once spoke favorably of Maccabbees and then did a 180 later when he was debating Eck on purgatory."

There are therefore a number of people on Mr. Michuta's wavelength: Luther denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha, at least 2 Maccabees, because it clearly teaches Purgatory. Of course, the other Apocryphal books aren't  mentioned. This is the only issue ever brought up: 2 Maccabees and Purgatory.  This is historical Roman Catholic myopic reasoning.

Then appeared the first meaningful Roman Catholic response to my contributions to this discussion by someone whom I think is named Sam Entile (this is his Catholic Answers signature link). Sam makes some good points taking this discussion to a deeper level.

Sam says,"Whether or not Luther believed there was a Purgatory is beside the point." What? This has been the thrust of the entire discussion, and as another participant stated, "If a part of Scripture didn't agree with [Luther's] theology, a good strategy would be question the Book's authenticity." The very question that opened thread asked if Luther removed "the DC's because they provided biblical evidence for Catholic beliefs that Luther disagreed with (purgatory, etc)." Mr. Michuta states, "Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology." Almost the entire tenor of the discussion revolves around whether or not Luther removed certain books because it contradicted his theology. The underlying assumption is that Luther's theology denied purgatory, so certain books had to go. This happens because many (if not most) Roman Catholics assume Luther didn't believe in Purgatory in 1519.  Luther still believed in Purgatory in 1519, and continued to do so for some time afterward. Sam said also,

"Luther had a major problem with the Catholic understanding of Purgatory, which included the help we can exercise for them by way of penances, including a financial penance. (Even Michuta, in a post Swan cites, says Luther rejected 'Purgatory and all that goes along with it [prayer and sacrifices].' I think a careful reading of the section in Gary's book also shows this to be the context of Luther's theological departure from the Catholic understanding."

Sam also launched into a discussion on indulgences related to purgatory. This is anachronism. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence when Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses, or at the 1519 Leipzig debate. There was no official Roman Catholic doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence and all that goes along with it upon purgatory. Until that was defined, theologians were able to debate on it, which is exactly what Luther did.

As to "a careful reading of Gary's book" which "shows this to be the context of Luther's theological departure from the Catholic understanding" I'd simply have to say: show me. I am working from the 1st edition, so if Gary Michuta has updated his arguments, I haven't seen them. I would posit though, if he did, he probably did so as a response to my blog entries! Unless shown otherwise from a later edition or elsewhere, my description of Mr. Michuta's argument above stands unless demonstrated from the context of his book.

Sam then says, "Luther's idea of Purgatory was very different than the Catholic idea of interceding on behalf of those souls (which included financial penance)." What Sam hasn't done though is provided any in-depth study as to what Luther's view of purgatory actually was, or what this view dogmatically consisted of for Roman Catholic theologians during Luther's lifetime. He then reiterates that the "Catholic idea of interceding on behalf of those souls (which included financial penance)." The underlying assumption is this was the dogmatic Roman Catholic view during this period in Luther's life, but as has been pointed out, the relationship of indulgences and Purgatory were still an issue to be worked out. Theologians in a Roman Catholic system were free to debate on issues not yet dogmatically defined. So, arguing Luther didn't believe in Purgatory correctly fails as a way to get Mr. Michuta off the hook. Both Luther and Eck believed in Purgatory in 1519.

Conclusion
As stated above, the approach I take is the exact opposite of Mr. Michuta and the Catholic Answers participants. I consider Luther fundamentally honest on this issue. He denied the authority of 2 Maccabees to establish doctrine because that was simply how he was trained as a theologian. He followed a tradition which denied the Apocrypha authority to establish doctrine. Luther provided detailed opinions of the Apocryphal books in his biblical prefaces. I see no reason to grant that his entire opinion suddenly shifted because of Eck at Leipzig. 

Revised, April 2026

Luther and Purgatory, Revisited

While spending a little time on the Catholic Answers forum, I came across an error in a secondary resource I use: What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. This actually turned out to be a helpful error. Back in 2008 I cited Plass stating,

"When in 1518 [Luther] further explained his fifteenth thesis, he remarked: 'I am very certain that there is a purgatory,'... In the Leipzig debate of the following year purgatory was discussed at length...Luther there said he knew that there is a purgatory. The dispute was about the nature of the institution rather than its existence. The 'orthodox' Romanists contended for the meritorious character of the purging. But increasingly Luther could find no room for this figment in Scripture theology. By November 7, 1519, he had progressed far enough to write to Spalatin: 'It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory,' although he had still professed to believe in its existence in February of that year. In fact, also in the following year in 1520, he still holds to it. But thereafter his language becomes different until...he calls it a fabrication of the devil" [Plass, What Luther Says Volume 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 387-388 n.25].

This information from Plass is helpful in debunking Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's argument that Eck (in debate) forced Luther to abandon the canonicty of 2 Maccabees in order to deny the reality of purgatory (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger). According to Michuta, "Eck appealed to 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a clear and incontestable proof from Scripture that Purgatory exists." Gary states, "Luther refused to allow Maccabees into the argument" (Michuta, pp. 248-249), and "This denial of canonical status [of 2 Maccabees] was something new" (p.250). Michuta posits, "Consequently, Maccabees could never be allowed full canonical authority because it contradicts Luther's theology" (p.252). "Luther taught that Scripture alone is the highest and ultimate authority for the individual Christian. When confronted with Scripture that contradicted his theology (as he was with 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, used as a defense of Purgatory), Luther took advantage of the doubts raised by Jerome to deny that ancient book's full canonical weight" (p.309). One can see the picture of Luther being painted: the only way to get out of Eck's scriptural argument for proof of purgatory was to deny that the scriptural proof was truly Scripture! On the Catholic Answers forum, Michuta stated, "Luther was forced to reject (or down-grade) the authority of Maccabees because its meaning unmistakably affirmed Purgatory and all that goes along with it." One must question the motivation applied to Luther by Mr. Michuta in light of the fact that Luther had not yet denied purgatory.

Plass shows Luther still maintained a belief in purgatory even after the debate with Eck. Plass though didn't go far enough. The texts he cites to substantiate his assertion (WA 7:451; 454] are not from 1520, but are from the March 1521 treatise Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. But also in 1521, Luther published his Defense and Explanations of all the Articles. Luther states,

THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE
That there is a purgatory cannot be proved by those Scriptures which are authentic and trustworthy.

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

There is only one thing that I have criticized, namely, the way in which my opponents refer to purgatory passages in Scripture which are so inapplicable that it is shameful. For example, they apply Ps. 66[:12], “We went through fire and through water,” though the whole psalm sings of the sufferings of the saints, whom no one places in purgatory. And they quote St. Paul in I Cor. 3[:13–15] when he says of the fire of the last day that it will test the good works, and by it some will be saved because they keep the faith, though their work may suffer loss. They turn this fire also into a purgatory, according to their custom of twisting Scripture and making it mean whatever they want.

And similarly they have arbitrarily dragged in the passage in Matt. 12[:32] in which Christ says, “Whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” Christ means here that he shall never be forgiven, as Mark 3[:29] explains, saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” To be sure, even St.Gregory interprets the passage in Matthew 12 to mean that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but St. Mark does not permit such an interpretation, and he counts for more than all the doctors.

I have discussed all this in order to show that no one is bound to believe more than what is based on Scripture, and those who do not believe in purgatory are not to be called heretics, if otherwise they accept Scripture in its entirety, as the Greek church does. The gospel compels me to believe that St. Peter and St. James are saints, but at the same time it is not necessary to believe that St. Peter is buried in Home and St. James at Compostella and that their bodies are still there, for Scripture does not report it. Again, there is no sin in holding that none of the saints whom the pope canonizes are saints, and no saint will be offended, for, as a matter of fact, there are many saints in heaven of whom we know nothing, and certainly not that they are saints, yet they are not offended, and do not consider us heretics because we do not know of them. The pope and his partisans play this game only in order to fabricate many wild articles of faith and thus make it possible to silence and suppress the true articles of the Scripture.

But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith! [LW 32:94-96]

Purgatory Legends

I came across a legend relating to purgatory and All Soul's Day and thought I would share it. I'm not sure exactly how old this legend is or how popular it was, but I did find it mentioned in a few books. Almost all of the books attribute the legend to a book on Odilo of Cluny (Vita Odilonis) written by Cardinal Peter Damiani who died in 1072.

Schaff's account of St. Peter Damiani gives a short but interesting history, including the following:

He systematized and popularized a method of meritorious self-flagellation in connection with the recital of the Psalms; each Psalm was accompanied with a hundred strokes of a leathern thong on the bare back, the whole Psalter with fifteen thousand strokes. This penance became a rage, and many a monk flogged himself to death to the music of the Psalms for his own benefit, or for the release of souls in purgatory. The greatest expert was Dominicus, who wore an iron cuirass around his bare body (hence called Loricatus), and so accelerated the strokes that he absolved without a break twelve Psalters; at last he died of exhaustion(1063). Even noble women ardently practiced “hoc purgatorii genus,” as Damiani calls it. He defended this self-imposed penance against the opponents as a voluntary imitation of the passion of Christ and the sufferings of martyrs, but he found it necessary also to check unnatural excesses among his disciples, and ordered that no one should be forced to scourge himself, and that forty Psalms with four thousand strokes at a time should be sufficient as a rule.

The legend below is probably not too popular anymore, although the Holy Souls Crusade did include the legend in their November 2006 newsletter.

It was St. Odilo of Cluny who first appointed one day every year to be set aside in a special manner for prayer for the faithful departed.

It happened that a certain religious belonging to France was returning home from Palestine, where he had gone to visit the places consecrated by the foot steps of Our Lord when He was on earth. A tempest arose when crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and he was cast upon a desert island. There dwelt on this island a holy hermit who lived in a cave, conversing continually with God, and leading a life of austerity and penance. He received the stranger thus cast upon his island home with great charity, and when he learned that he was from France he suddenly said to him: "Do you know a certain abbey in France which is governed by a venerable Abbot named Odilo?"

Yes," replied the stranger, "I know the Abbey of Cluny, and also the saintly Odilo; but how have you come to know him here in this solitary place?"

There is," replied the hermit, "not far from this cave a deep chasm from which issue terrible flames.

In the midst of these flames I have seen millions of souls suffering most agonizing tortures for the faults they committed when on earth. Wicked spirits are there by permission of God to increase their punishment, tormenting them without ceasing, until their expiation is completed. In the midst of the rightful cries that arise from the abyss, I heard the evil spirits complain, in words of the deepest rage and hatred, that many of these souls were snatched from them long before the time fixed for the termination of their punishment, and were led to Heaven in triumph by the prayers and alms of the faithful, and in particular by the prayers and penances of Odilo, Abbot of Cluny, and his religious.

Wherefore I beg of you, in the name of God," continued the hermit, "to relate faithfully on your return to France what I have now told you, and to ask these pious and saintly religious, and the venerable Abbot Odilo, to continue their holy prayers and alms and even to augment them, that the happiness of the blessed in Heaven may be increased, and that the evil spirits may be confounded more and more."

On his return to his native country, this religious went to Cluny, and in the presence of Odilo and his community related what the hermit had told him. Then Odilo, to commemorate the event, and to increase in the hearts of those under his charge a greater devotion to the holy souls in Purgatory, appointed November 2 as a day when special prayers and Masses should be offered up for the repose of the faithful departed. This soon spread over the whole Church, and is known by the name of "All Souls Day."

The Catechism in Examples, Vol. 5 (pg. 146)

Messages from Purgatory

The latest Tan Books newsletter has announced a new book, Hungry Souls: Supernatural Visits, Messages, and Warnings from Purgatory, in celebration of Holy Souls month.

"...Hungry Souls recounts these stories and many others trustworthy, Church-verified accounts of earthly visitations from the dead in Purgatory. Accompanying these accounts are images from the "Museum of Purgatory" in Rome, which contains relics of encounters with the Holy Souls, including numerous evidences of hand prints burned into clothing and books; burn marks that cannot be explained by natural means or duplicated by artificial ones. Riveting!"

You can read more about the "Museum of Purgatory" here. Interestingly, Tan Books still considers purgatory a fire to be suffered, an idea that tends to be downplayed by many RCs today:

"November is the Month of Holy Souls. In our Charity, we must not neglect to pray for these men and women who are ultimately assured of becoming saints, yet suffer in Purgatory’s fire. They have felt the struggles and crosses of this life and still need our prayers to attain their reward..." source

Sungenis: Good Catholics have no excuse for going to Purgatory

"Good Catholics have no excuse for going to Purgatory. If they are really pay attention to their Catholic faith and take advantage of all the Indulgences that are continually being made available to escape any and all punishment in Purgatory, then it stands to reason that no good Catholic should go to Purgatory." [source]

Translating Purgatory

"In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of [purgatory], even if it is not formally described. They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification."- Pope John Paul II

Translation: We have a theological concept without explicit proof, so any verse that sounds remotely close enough to that concept weighs in as affirmative Biblical evidence.


Purgatory= "The place or condition in which the souls of the just are purified after death and before they can enter heaven." Fr. John A. Hardon .

Purgatory= "The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence." Pope John Paul II

Translation: Pick one of these or both: a)Hardon was wrong b) The Pope was not intending to speak infallibly



"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)."- This Rock, "Is Purgatory Found in the Bible?"

Translation: We have enough wiggle room to speculate or further develop this doctrine. That is, you can say almost anything about purgatory and still be in harmony with the Roman Catholic Church.


"Purgatory used to be seen as a waiting room or a jail cell where the soul pays reparation for the "temporal punishment for sin" by 'doing time.' In fact, some devotionals used to assign a specific number of years in Purgatory for each sin, and a certain number of years that could be taken off of our sentence in Purgatory for an act of indulgence. I do not know much about this practice, and if anyone knows more about it I would really appreciate if you could explain it more clearly by leaving a comment for this post. The vision of Purgatory as a waiting room or a jail cell has somewhat fallen out of favor among post-Vatican II theologians. One reason is the awareness that Purgatory is experienced before the resurrection of our bodies. Without a body, a soul does not experience time in the same way we do now."-Saint Peter Catholic Church

Translation: Understanding the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory will be different in each generation. That is, each generation of Catholic scholars are given the freedom to speculate and interpret purgatory however they'd like to.


"Just as the doctrine of purgatory flows from the Catholic understanding of grace, so misconceptions flow from a misunderstanding of grace. Errors concerning this doctrine are most prevalent among Protestants due to their teaching of sola fide."-Catholics United for The Faith

Translation: The Roman Catholic template of grace didn't match up to all the information presented in the Bible, so purgatory was put forth to try to make it all work. Sola Fide though can account for all the relevant Biblical passages without importing an extra-biblical concept.


"Certain Protestants, such as C.S. Lewis, have also held to the truth of the doctrine [of Purgatory]"-Catholic Culture

Translation: A smart Protestant believed the Bible and in Purgatory, so should you. Forget doing exegesis, or studying the Bible. Lewis was too smart not to be wrong on Purgatory, but we can't figure out exactly why he wasn't smart enough to be a Roman Catholic....

Luther on 2 Maccabees 12:46

A Catholic apologist actually found an interesting factoid about Luther's opinion of 2 Maccabees 12:46 and purgatory. He found that Luther stated in a letter, "The text in Maccabees is left, and is quite plain." How ironic is this- I point to Catholic scholars who say it is not a plain reference, and this guy points to Luther who says it is! Luther, the man who Catholics say misinterpreted and added words to the Bible comes to the rescue of Catholic apologetics!

Well, it is an interesting factoid, and I'll give the Roman Catholic the credit for actually finding something of interest. I'll let you decide if this factoid offsets the fact that the very study bible he wrote inserts for states of 2 Maccabees 12:42-46, "The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just" and "His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory."

Here's something related to this point that I've cited previously. In 1521, Luther explains the spurious nature of using 2 Maccabees as a prooftext for Purgatory, while at the same time believing in purgatory.

THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE
That there is a purgatory cannot be proved by those Scriptures which are authentic and trustworthy.

The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in short, I myself have come to the conclusion that there is a purgatory, but I cannot force anybody else to come to the same result.

There is only one thing that I have criticized, namely, the way in which my opponents refer to purgatory passages in Scripture which are so inapplicable that it is shameful. For example, they apply Ps. 66[:12], “We went through fire and through water,” though the whole psalm sings of the sufferings of the saints, whom no one places in purgatory. And they quote St. Paul in I Cor. 3[:13–15] when he says of the fire of the last day that it will test the good works, and by it some will be saved because they keep the faith, though their work may suffer loss. They turn this fire also into a purgatory, according to their custom of twisting Scripture and making it mean whatever they want.

And similarly they have arbitrarily dragged in the passage in Matt. 12[:32] in which Christ says, “Whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” Christ means here that he shall never be forgiven, as Mark 3[:29] explains, saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” To be sure, even St. Gregory interprets the passage in Matthew 12 to mean that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but St. Mark does not permit such an interpretation, and he counts for more than all the doctors.

I have discussed all this in order to show that no one is bound to believe more than what is based on Scripture, and those who do not believe in purgatory are not to be called heretics, if otherwise they accept Scripture in its entirety, as the Greek church does. The gospel compels me to believe that St. Peter and St. James are saints, but at the same time it is not necessary to believe that St. Peter is buried in Home and St. James at Compostella and that their bodies are still there, for Scripture does not report it. Again, there is no sin in holding that none of the saints whom the pope canonizes are saints, and no saint will be offended, for, as a matter of fact, there are many saints in heaven of whom we know nothing, and certainly not that they are saints, yet they are not offended, and do not consider us heretics because we do not know of them. The pope and his partisans play this game only in order to fabricate many wild articles of faith and thus make it possible to silence and suppress the true articles of the Scripture.

But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith! [LW 32:95-96]

The NCAB on Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12

The New Catholic Answer Bible is an odd mixture of Catholic scholarship and a lack of Catholic scholarship. That is, the actual verse notes appear to have been compiled by educated Catholic scholars. On the other hand, this Bible has colored "inserts" (reminiscent of Watchtower literature) that appear sporadically throughout highlighting a particular Catholic belief. These present the typical popular Catholic apologetics one would find put forth from Catholic Answers.

As I noted previously, insert H2 answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)." The answer tacitly affirms 2 Maccabees 12 teaches purgatory.

On the other hand, here is the actual verse commentary for 2 Maccabees 12: 42-46-

12, 42-46: This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v 42) and sacrifices (v 43) for the dead are beneficial. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7,9. 14. 23. 36). That is, he believed that expiation could be made for certain sins of otherwise good men- soldiers who had given their lives for God's cause. Thus, they could share in the resurrection. His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

I think I'm going to start a collection of Catholic commentaries on these verses. I find the range of interpretations quite interesting.

Defending Purgatory With All Your Cards On The Table

There's a chapter in this book by a Roman Catholic named Zachary J. Hayes. He defends "The Purgatorial view" of the afterlife. While disagreeing with Hayes throughout, I did appreciate the candor by which he expressed himself. It was quite refreshing to read an articulate honest defense of purgatory, minus the typical ignoring of presuppositions that's so characteristic of Rome's defenders. Here are a few snippets that jumped out.

Hayes states,

"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine. In this they differ from those Protestant theologians who hold not only that the doctrine of purgatory has no scriptural basis but that, in fact, it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p.107]

"Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104).

As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy.

"If Roman Catholic theologians find the evidence of Scripture ambiguous, what follows after that is unavoidably a matter of tradition and the development of church doctrine" (p.108).

"So for Roman Catholic theology, it is not surprising that we cannot find a clear textual 'proof' of the doctrine of purgatory in the Scriptures. But we are inclined to ask whether there are issues that lie at the heart of the biblical revelation that find a form of legitimate expression in this doctrine. One way or the other, the issue of purgatory is clearly an issue of development of doctrine" (p.109).

There are many other fascinating statements from Hayes. I appreciate these honest admissions. Think of how much time and energy could be saved in discussion with Catholics if they would simply admit that proving purgatory has more to do with finding biblical passages that seem to be in harmony with the development, rather than actually clearly proving purgatory? For Catholics, the issue of Purgatory does not begin with the Bible, it begins outside the Bible, and is read back in. For Protestants, the issue of Purgatory begins with the Bible, and ends when no clear text can be produced to warrant a Biblical pedigree.

Interestingly, a person on the CARM boards was asking recently, "I need specific scriptures that the Catholic Church uses to prove purgatory." The question should really be, “What are the specific passages the Roman Catholic Church uses that coincide with their development of the doctrine of purgatory?” I agree with Hayes and his honesty. No Biblical passage clearly teaches Purgatory. The doctrine developed, and Catholics in each time period have had to go back into the Biblical text to find passages that seem to allude to it as it develops.