Pints With Aquinas - Is Purgatory taught in Scripture and in the Fathers? William Albrecht Vs Fr. Ramsey

Episode Date: October 21, 2022

Join our community on Locals (1month free trial): https://mattfradd.locals.com/support/promo/TRYLOCALS?_utm_source=yt Resolution: There is payment or satisfaction after death for unrepentant sins, such that a suffering soul will be freed from any suffering or punishment and attain paradise. For which William will take the affirmative and Rev. Dr. Ramsey will take the negative. FORMAT: 2 15 min openings 2 20 min cross ex Audience Q&A as Matt likes as long as he likes 2 Closing 10 min each

All right, all right, all right. Welcome to Pines with Aquinas everybody. Today we have an excellent debate scheduled for you between William Albrecht and Father Ramsey. They're going to be debating this resolution. There is payment or satisfaction after death for unrepentant sins such that a suffering soul will be freed from any suffering or punishment and attain paradise.

The reason it's perhaps more nuanced than other purgatory debates you might be familiar with is that Father Ramsey is Orthodox. I'm sure there'll be a lot of people will confuse them entirely. They'll think that Ulbricht might be a Protestant or something, but Father Ramsey is an Orthodox priest. William Ulbricht is a Catholic. So we have the format below. We have two 15 minute opening statements followed by two 20 minute cross examine, examination

periods. Then we'll do some Q&A. And so if you want to make sure your question gets asked, send it as a super chat. We might be able to ask you a question if it's not that just to just to make sure that we see it and then finally after the Q&A period there'll be two closing statements of 10 minutes each. Sound good? All right well let's begin now with William you have 15 minutes to present your opening statement and whenever you begin, I'll click the timer

Wonderful. I will begin now. Thank you very much Matt for having me here and thank you for joining me yet again The Reverend dr. Ramsey today. We're gonna be talking about purgatory purification post-mortem purification in the afterlife and exactly what that entails Within Catholicism as that is what is being challenged today. My goal today is to show that we have a whole lot more in common than perhaps many people realize and the goal is to reach those commonalities rather than to draw a greater wedge, a greater divide between what are very clearly

apostolic traditions. The Bible tells us very clearly that nothing unclean can enter heaven in the context of Revelation 21 is very clear. It requires an inner holiness in order to enter into heaven. And the Greek word is very emphatic on that, for one must be clean and not contaminated or stained as the Latin tradition would call it in order to enter the glory of heaven. One Peter 1 really does lay down the heart of what we're going to be talking about today. It says, one Peter 1, in this you greatly rejoice though now for a little while, if need be, you've been grieved by various trials that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Christ. Hebrews 12 is very clear. If you endure chastening, God

deals with you as with sons, so God chastens his sons for our own good. For what son is there whom the Father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers that corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? The belief in purgation, and we're not arguing that those passages talk about post-mortem purification,

but they talk about the fact that it is perfectly in line with Holy Writ to be purified. Now, 1 Peter is clearly talking about the fiery purification, metaphorical of God in general, and Hebrews is talking about the fact that God chastens all believers. The belief in purification has been present in the Christian faith from the very beginning. The idea that one would need to be fully cleansed and purified, either here on earth or in the afterlife is found all over the Jewish depths and the New Testament Greek word. We mean the New Testament, what the apostles wrote, and the followers, the disciples of the apostles, very clearly broken down there. And those followers that we call the early church

followers were unanimous in such a teaching. Now people hear the word unanimous and at times they'll say, well, what do you mean unanimous? Every single one taught it. No, but we're talking about when everyone talks about what possibly happens post-mortem, they do touch upon purgatory in a certain sense. So we're gonna talk about that today. The scriptures are very clear on this issue, the Catholic scriptures, making the written and the paradoxes, the tradition of God clear that this teaching has always been a component of the Orthodox faith of Christianity. And I say Orthodox with a tiny o today. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us what we need to know about Purgatory. Purgatory is essentially simply about those who die in God's friendship in the favor of God,

assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven. So there are a number of things that we are required to believe as Catholics, a number of things that are part of pious beliefs that we don't want to criticize and attack because they're not part of the dogma as long as you don't contradict what is dogmatic, what the church has defined. What the church has defined is a bit limited there because our minds are limited and finite. What we know that has been revealed to us is a bit limited on this. Of course, Father Ramsey and myself don't know exactly what happens in every step of the way in the afterlife,

and I pray to God that we don't know for quite some time. What we do know is purgatory is temporal. All who go to the sanctification that Christ's sacrifice has allowed us to go through will enter into the glorious heavenly paradise that our Lord and God and the Savior has prepared and desired for all men. In scouring the writings of the great fathers, we find very clearly there are very pillars laid out by Catholicism. There is purification after death. There could be. We don't argue that every single one is going to need to undergo purification. This purification will have either pain or discomfort or both or will be a kind of punishment. Precisely why we will harken to 1 Corinthians 3 later, which talks about the punishment, suffering through fire, a suffering loss of the person. Now we realize and recognize how metaphorical language is utilized,

and we'll talk about that later. Three, an area where we heavily agree upon, this is the beauty of today's debate, that you have two people that are part of apostolic churches that are not going to argue. The third point I bring up, that God helps those that are undergoing this purification through the actions of the living.

This is the faith of the fathers, the faith of all of the apostolic churches. The body of Christ is connected as the written and historical traditional Word of God is always shown. We don't dip around that point at all. And thanks be to God, we can talk about books like 2 Maccabees that have always, I want to be very clear, every time the church gathered a council, 2 Maccabees that have all, I want to be very clear, every time the church gathered at council, 2 Maccabees was never lacking, included in every single early church council where the church gathered and talked about Holy Rit. Thus today, we can look and examine and dialogue, okay, what is going on there in 2 Maccabees 12? 2 Maccabees 12 shows that there existed in late Judaism the conviction that those who had died in sin could be helped by prayer and sacrifice of atonement.

Purification from sin was ascribed to prayer and sacrifice. 2 Maccabees 12 reads, And they turned, verse 42, to supplication, after Judas finds his men. They've fallen. They've died. Now they died fighting for the one true God and it's very clear and I'm so glad that we don't differ on this point today as the great Saint Jerome and multiple other fathers, the great Saint Robert Bellarmine point out, they did not die in mortals sin and as we

both will agree upon even though he's not a saint in our church, but he's a giant, so the Reverend Dr. Ramsey, Mark of Ephesus, would agree as well. So the prayer is efficacious for these men that are fallen. And it says, and they turn to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin. For they had seen with their own eyes what had happened. As a result of the sin of those who had fallen they picked up loot booty as st. Robert Belleman points out now were they worshiping idols of course not how

would they go to give their lives for the one true God and be worshiping being idolaters doesn't make any sense doesn't jive with the text and furthermore we find in verse 43 that a sin offering is made. And verse 44, for if you were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, those that had died, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. Another thing that we will be so much in agreement with today is the Reverend Dr. Ramsey is a first hand scholar of the Greek. He knows the Greek there is very clear. The superfluous foolish is indicative of silliness. And if first-hand scholar of the Greek. He knows the Greek there is very clear. The superfluous foolish is indicative of silliness if the truth of the resurrection of the dead weren't

in view here. It's very much in view here. Thus there's prayer for the dead that is put down. And verse 45, but if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. But verse 45 or 46, depending on how your Bible breaks it down, says, Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they may be loosed, depending on how that Greek word is translated, or delivered from their sin. The Catholic will say this is very clear, that there is a kind of detainment, a kind of suffering in the afterlife or a kind of punishment if you will, punishment perhaps a better descriptive word here.

Thoth's prayer is quite efficacious as is shown in 2 Maccabees 12. Thoth's atonement is made for the dead. This is very clearly something that was not a novelty at the time. We find it in later on the intercession of the dead in 2 Maccabees and more areas as well in another very clear area that shows that this was a common practice at the time. It wasn't a novelty. You know the people standing there didn't get shocked and say what do you mean we're gonna pray for the dead? It was common practice, which is why in Catholicism, we believe that the Catholic faith is the fulfillment of that, of all of those great prophecies

and messianic prophecies. The church prays for the dead and has prayed for the dead from the very beginning. All of this is very clear, but it really is all leading to the magnificent text we find in 1 Corinthians 3. Where Paul is chastising the Corinthians, he's had enough of it with them already. They're living factious, they're divisive, and guess what? Every day they're being killed. St. Paul knows that because he was killing them before it converted. He knows that very well. So they're going to be killed, and he knows they're going to be martyred for the faith and he tells them your day is on the way. But what does he mean by day

in the Greek? If you look at how when Paul or any other New Testament Greek author talks about the day or the day of the Lord where we're going to be referred to judgment day either the particular or the general. It doesn't matter which one you want to talk about today. What matters is talking about the day, the afterlife, and there is purification in the afterlife. That's what today's debate is about. There are parameters as to what the topic of today's debate about.

It's not, OK, well, you know what? How long or is there time or what have you? All those things, perhaps trivial things. The issue at hand is what happens in the afterlife for those that are purified? Paul says, by the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds, for no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones,

or precious stones, very clear in the Greek, what hey or straw, his work will be shown for what it is because the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire. And by the way, for our friends that like talking about the controversial topic of universalism, 1 Corinthians 3 absolutely blows universalism away. There's no possible way because it's talking about it will be revealed with fire and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he's built survives, he will receive his reward that is talking about heaven.

But if it's burned up, he's going to go to hell, right? No, of course not. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss and neothesis time. He's gonna suffer loss, yet he will be saved. So, so now how is it gonna suffer loss and be saved? Well, Paul's very clear. He says, but only or yet so as through fire. He says, but only or yet so as through fire. This Greek, the Dia Paros is very clear. He's very clearly talking about a post-mortem purification of the man. Now we've heard the later novelties of Francis Turrican and of John Calvin of attempting to swipe this text away and say, well, it's talking about the works and not the man.

Well, I'm sorry, but you cannot separate the works from the man. The man is the one that goes to this fire St. Paul is talking about here. He is purified in the afterlife, yet he is also saved as Dia Paros is very clear about. Now, do we believe Dia Paros through fire is purgation every time it's used? Of course not. But every time you look in the Greek Septuagint, anywhere you look, anywhere in the Greek texts, where diaparas is combined, coupled with precious metals, which are indicative of the good works being done here, it is a purgation that is going on.

Thus, the works attached to the man, the man is going through the fire being purified. Yet he is being saved. Now the interesting thing is that today we've got two people, the incredible Reverend Dr. Ramsey and simple me, that are part of apostolic tradition. So we don't care what Calvin of the Reformers had to say, because even they admitted, Calvin was so upset, he admitted his text taught purgatory,

he admitted the fathers taught purgatory, then he argued and said that they were going to have to undergo a purgatory of their own for teaching purgatory. How absolutely ludicrous is that? But we look at 2 Maccabees 12, we look at 1 Corinthians, we look at the tradition of the text, the way Peter is looked at, the epistle of Peter, our first Pope, the way the text is looked at from the author of the letter of the Hebrews, it's very clear what is 1 Corinthians as well hearkening to, it's hearkening to Malachi. And in Malachi, go look at Malachi where it talks about the refiner's fire being purified is very clearly scriptural. And Ludwig Ott, the Reverend Dr. Ott is very clear. He says tradition abounds in testimonies in the favor of the doctrine. And he lists a number of fathers so powerful a belief in the early church was this teaching that

the Father speak loud and clear about purgation in the afterlife. St. Clement of Alexandria says he is able to tell us that these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one. This in regards to a person who still needs certain sins cleansed in the afterlife. He must, as Clement tells us in the pre-Nicene era, undergo purging, purification. The great Cyprian tells us we must be purged by fire until our sins are removed. The golden mouth Chrysostomos tells us the Job's sons were purified by sacrifice. So the sacrifice of the altar, even greater, that is offered, should also purify those souls that still have vestiges of sin remaining. Don't ever forget to pray for your departed loved ones when you go to Mass.

Every day pray for them and weep for them. And pray that when you depart, that they pray for you as well. That will, I will surrender the rest of my opening time. Thank you William. Father Ramsey, you have 15 minutes whenever you'd like to start. Alright, thank you. I'll just get myself done and get the right thing in front of me. Sorry for a moment. Right, thank you, William, for your point. And yeah, I'm ready to start now. God is life. God is holy and pure. God is one. There is no contradiction in God, nor is it possible for what is contrary to God

to unite to God. Thus there is no union of God with what is bound to death, nor what is sinful. St Paul says, for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Those whose sin earn death is their punishment. Which sin? That done in the body. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, in accordance with the things which he did, whether good or bad. Also what good we do for reward is also that done in the body. The psalmist writes, a man shall not give to God a ransom for himself, nor the price of redemption for his own soul, though he have labored forever and shall live to the

end. If a man cannot pay a price by laboring, that is suffering forever, then how can there be a temple price paid for the death of what has not been completed in life? We also know that man live once and then are judged. They don't have a second chance at life. And isn't as much as it is appointed for men to once to die and after this judgment. And all these things, having attained witnesses through their faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us that they should not be made perfect apart from us we are to receive our promise for perfection

all together at the last day let us hear the story of Lazarus and it came to pass that the beggar died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried and being in torments in Hades he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham from afar and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried out and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame. But Abraham said, Child, remember that your lifetime you see good things and likewise Lazarus bad things but now he is comforted and you are suffering and

Besides all this between us and you is a great golf has been fixed So that those who desire the crossover from here to you are not able nor may those from there cross over to us you are not able, nor may those from there cross over to us.' Then he said, "'Therefore I beseech you, Father, that you should send him to my Father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' Abraham said to him, "'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. And he said, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead should go to them, they will

repent. There is suffering immediately post death, and also a place of rest, as well as the inability to cross from one place to the other, or for forgiveness when one realizes his sin, even if then willing to repent. The rich man knows that his brothers need to repent before coming to the same place. The rich man also only seeks consolation, not release. We have no indication that the rich man sinned badly in his life, only that he received good things in his life. Our eternal state is one of the resurrected human, that is one in which the soul is reunited with the body and remains in that state eternally,

just as Christ. Our eternal state is one of soul and body. This state is not simply a reward for those doing good from a continuing world, but rather it is the end for which we are created. Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having predestined us as adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. God is the end of all creation. That is union with God and partaking of a divine nature. This end is one in which we partake in soul and body.

The union of body and soul is what defines us as humans, and without the body we are dead, even if continuing as soul. Given that the end of our existence is union with God, with soul and body, our life is established for this end, and not as something of this world in itself. Judgment is not about being a nice human or living a nice life here on earth,

but about whether we are willing to live eternally in union with God without contradiction or opposition or division from God. Core to our union with God is our freedom to be united, so that we may be truly free as God is free, for we are in His image. Thus the judgment is really a test of how we have used our freedom of activity in relation to God. Have we acted willingly in virtue and harmony with God? Or have we acted willingly or negligently in sin, contrary to God? Our own efforts are not able to save us.

And so the question is further asking, whether we have been willing to let God be all in us, without division or limit, to be perfect as He is perfect. We are saved by His grace. This is not so much about what things we do or don't do in themselves. We're not saved by works, but about our willingness to act as God in our own actions, even if we fall short of His perfection of ourselves. Since we freely act with God and not as robots, our intention is realized through our concrete actions and these actions must be in the body, because that is the state of existence for which we are being judged. These actions falling short in our own efforts in themselves must be coupled with repentance in the body. They must be

led by faith again in the body. The suffering leading to repentance or honor is to be experienced in body as bringing us body and soul into perfection. We do not suffer now to pay for sins but to turn our hearts and minds to Christ, repentance, or to demonstrate that our minds and hearts are turned to Christ, glory. Our minds and hearts are turned to Christ. Our previous sins are irrelevant because we have shown ourselves to be of good will for union with God, which is why God is quick to forgive the repentance. There is no need to punish them. Penance is to stabilize one once we depart from this body, our actions, repentance and faith in the soul alone are

not relevant for judgment because they are not done in the state in which we will exist eternally, that is in soul and body. That doesn't help the rich man to repent once he died. The wages of sin is death. That is, sin separates from God, and this separation from life necessarily leads to death. To deem this is only possible through repentance from sin and forgiveness. No amount of suffering or actions can redeem us from the death in themselves.

Christ redeemed us by death, and destroyed death for those coming into union with God through Him, by which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ Jesus once for all. At every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which are never able to take away sins. But he himself, having offered one sacrifice for sins forever, he sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till his enemies are placed as a footstool for his feet. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Christ paid any price that is to be paid, and perfected all those being sanctified by

his own offering. For those not willing to be like God, to have God as all in them, there is only one outcome and one penalty, death. Once dead, there is nothing else to pay for one's sins. The wages of sin is not suffering for pain, but death. The only way to remove death is forgiveness of sins in Christ. Coming into union with God in the last day is an eternal state of life. Then unable to be so unified, results in an eternal state of the second death or punishment.

If an eternal state of punishment is unable to cleanse the sins of sinners because they remain eternally in this state, then how are sins open to be cleansed by a temporal link of punishment? The least breach of a law is a breach of the whole law. So we cannot say that only sinners with such and such a magnitude of sin will face the second death. Adam and Eve died for what may be said to be a minor sin today, not eating a specific food. How many of us have failed to keep a fast today? Do we rank this with adultery or murder? By no means. Yet their sin brought death and

corruption on all humanity and even more on all creation. That is even the least sin separates from the penalty of the purity of God, because it brings division and God is one. Death itself does not pay for sin as if once dead the sin is cleansed, but is rather the end of activity that prevents one from continuing to sin, else all would inherit eternal life simply having died. Death in the body does help to stop sin, because once dead one can no longer sin in the body, but not of one's will, rather of a necessity of being dead. The second death after the man's eviction, however, is not an end of the body, which

remains, but a death of all activity so that we cannot sin. The state of death in itself separates one from God, who is life. And even if it stops sin, it does not allow one to be united to God. Union with God requires the fullness of active life. Why are offerings and almsgiving and prayers beneficial to the dead, if not to pay for sins? There are two kinds of benefits. The first is a relief or consolation of a suffering. And the second rare benefit is that the soul is saved

at the final judgment. It is the love of the righteous that brings these benefits. The love, sorry, it's the love of righteous that brings these benefits. The love of the righteous is manifest through their righteous actions of love to others and dedication to remember the departed. We are shut out of eternal life if we have not known to God. The door was shut afterwards and remaining the virgin came also saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

He answered and said, But surely I say to you, I do not know you. And so remembering the departed before God helps them to have consolation through being known and remembered. To save them the last day requires that the one praying is righteous, to have the prayers overheard by God, who wishes to grant the desires of the righteous. It is on their account that the sinner is forgiven and saved. It assumes that the sinner is likewise able to be united to God, such as having died as baptized, orthodox in faith, not refusing to repent in communion with the church. In conclusion, the wages of sin is death. The punishment of a sin is

death and once dead one is not able to again pay the price, even if paid no salvation because one is dead. There's no other payment that no accounts suffering from the problem. One remains in death and suffering only through love, through action of faith and virtue as Christ can permit forgiveness and freedom from judgment as they find against the perfection of God and goodwill to unite with Him eternally. We may help a soul through our love but our soul is not going to benefit for any time of suffering

Because suffering is not there and only death pays for sin. Thank you. Sorry No, that's terrific. Thank you. Father Ramsey Before we move into a time of 20 minutes cross-examination I'd like to invite you to consider joining our pines with the quietness community over on matfrad.locals.com That's a place where you can support us for a small amount every month. And when you do, you get access to a bunch of free things in return, like a morning podcast that I do exclusively over there on Locals, monthly spiritual direction that's exclusive to you all from Father Gregory

Pine. We have a quarterly newspaper that gets mailed out to anywhere in the world and we pay the shipping for that. We have monthly Catholic audiobooks. We have a bunch of study series. We just had Dr. Ed Faser record a seven-part video series on Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways that people are really appreciating. A bunch more in return. If you click the link in the description below, that will give you a month free trial to our locals group and you can decide after that whether or not you wanna be a part of it. People are kind of raving about it. They say this is what social media was supposed to be,

because the only people who can comment, respond to you, and the people who can post are those who are supporting Paints with Aquinas, which means all of the trolls disappear. And so it's a really cool way to have a Catholic community online, I think. Anyway, you can try it for a month for free, and if you don't like it, you can always quit, but I don't think you'll, it for a month for free. And if you don't like it, you can always quit. But I don't think you'll, I don't think you will.

I think you'll really like it. MattFrad.locals.com. But again, click that link in the description below to get a month free trial. All right, let's move into it. Neil, are you able to fix that? See the pines of the Aquinas? It slipped off the, yes, yes, the joys of live Ecamm.

Maybe if you can drag it down. Otherwise we'll all'll just offer up for the souls and purgatory that's a joke okay we're gonna move into a time of 20 minute cross-examined so William you're gonna begin right for 20 minutes so just so everybody knows here's kind of how cross-examined works I feel like I always have to explain this because people don't realize but it's's time basically to drive the conversation however he wants to and wherever he wants to. He's totally free to cut off Father Ramsay and redirect the conversation as he sees fit. Likewise, when Father Ramsay is going to be cross-examining William, he'll also have that freedom.

So it's not a matter of being rude or interrupting or anything like that. It's just that's how it works. All right. So William, whenever you want to start, you got 20 minutes. Great. I will begin now. Father Ramsey, sticking to the parameters of the debate thesis, people can see down there, is there payment or satisfaction after death for unrepentant sins, for a suffering soul. I would like to direct you to the confession of Deceit from the Council of Jerusalem. How are you able to square away the decree number 18 where the confession says that some that have died are either at

rest or in torment according to what each has done. Then it goes forward to say that some that have departed in despair while still living in the body, though without bringing forth fruit, any fruits of repentance forth have repented by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, afflicting themselves, relieving the poor and showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor. And which the Catholic Church has from the beginning, rightly called satisfaction, either their souls depart into Hades and therein endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. That to me sounds a whole lot like the thesis that I am affirming today. How would you swear that away if that's from Jerusalem itself and the confession of Decipius? That particular confession was very heavily couched in Roman Catholic

language, so in many doctrines it is. So I just take it as a refutation of Protestantism. So as far as it goes at refuting Protestantism, it's very good and it does its job But it's often using Roman Catholic Phraseology nuances expressions, etc to do so and as far as it does so in refutation to Protestant ideas We I completely support it, but sometimes when it does express things that using the terminology or phrase ology But sometimes when it does express things, using the terminology or phraseology from Roman Catholic influence in Jerusalem at the time, a very heavy influence around the 17th century.

So in that regards, I don't take it as trying to express what is probably a more general sense of a patristic doctrine in the East. So that is my response to that. Let me ask you this Father Ramsey, because we did a show a few months back, I think time flies so fast, I forgot when, and you told me yourself that Jerusalem was a pan-Orthodox council. So I've got to ask you, are you denying certain very key aspects of Decree 18 from a pan-Orthodox council?

You say that some of this decree is incorrect, specifically the parts that sound too Catholic. Did I hear that correctly? It's not an ecumenical council, and it's obvious just now. Some people are sort of given it a reasonable level of support as such. But it's quite clear to me, and having read it, that it is couched in the very terminology.

So I support it as far as the intentions of the council. But as far as the way it's expressed a lot of things, and some of the ideas in it, it doesn't stand as an ecumenical council to be abated in every every point. So and it's it's not yeah it's some ways representative but it's not it's really a local council in Jerusalem but above is others in attendance as I should say again it's distinct from a proper ecumenical council. So it's not binding on us, but we can use it for usefulness in opposition to Protestant ideas. So can you deny the Council of

Jerusalem? Are you able to deny that as a council? I'm able to say that particular expressions and things are not necessarily binding on us as being the way that we are bound by that expression of a way of saying it. But that's not to deny the whole council. It's just to say that those particular points we must take with a pinch of salt. As a sense of such, that is exactly the right way to say things as orthodox, as distinct from the intention, which is we agree with that against Protestantism that we do offer prayers over dead and they are beneficial

for them. It's just the language of satisfaction, etc. Well, let me kind of be clear. I'm sorry for interrupting. Let me be clear, though. It doesn't say only Protestantism. It's talking about in generally the souls. So I completely understand. I'd be honest to be preparing for this debate. I was not able to find a single Orthodox scholar that would deny a pan-Orthodox council or portions of it, but that, hey, you learn something new every day.

Let me just ask you this for clarification for the audience. The confession of Deceitius from the Council of Jerusalem, 1672 if I remember correctly, the whole thesis of what I'm affirming today is that affirmed there in that confession. The language used is coming out of a type of confession which Roman Catholics use as a proof of purgatory, but it's not actually necessarily affirming the exact doctrine of purgatory, because that has been rejected by

Orthodox. So the points of where it goes so far as we have been at Florence. I'm at Florence. Okay, I think I broke up there. You able to hear me okay? I can hear you now. I broke up a little bit too. Oh, right. Okay, no problem. Okay.

Yeah, so I just want to confirm there. I understand there are more folds to purgatory, if you will. But the strict thesis that we agreed upon, satisfaction, suffering in the afterlife, very clearly comes out in the confession of the Scythians. We can agree upon them. What I don't agree upon is that it's only towards Protestantism, but I understand why you would say that.

I respect that because very clearly it was at a time where Orthodoxy was dealing with it, finally came to a head with Protestantism and Catholicism was before we had our Trent. And I got to say, Father Ramsey, I got to say Jerusalem sounds a whole lot like Trent. It looks like you all had the blueprints for that ahead of time. Let me go ahead and read, let me read something to you. And I would like you to let me know if you agree with it or not.

And of course you can simply say, you know what let me know if you agree with it or not. And of course you can simply say, you know what, I just don't agree with it. Now I want to also emphasize one other thing. Whenever I talk about fire, a lot of the time you can ask me for clarification. Sometimes I'll be using fire in the sense of the fiery love of Christ or the fiery love of the Holy Spirit. But let me go ahead and read this for you. They who have acquired the perfection of love for God and have elevated the wing of the soul to the virtues according to the apostle, excuse me, are caught up in the clouds and they don't come into judgment. But they who did not completely acquire

perfection, but have acquired both sins and successes, these do come into the court of judgment, and there, as if being burned by fire, or some Greek says, some will be judged through fires and purified in the future age after the comparing of the good and evil deeds. Would you agree with that, or do you have a problem with any of that that I quoted there? From whom was that quoted? Well, if I may be a little bit cheeky first, I'd like to know if you agree with it first. Do you have any problem with that theology?

Well, I'd like to know from whom it was quoted, please. It was quoted from the great St. Maximus the Confessor, who is enunciating, purgatory, post-mortem purification in the afterlife, for those that have sinned. So I wonder if, do you agree with that statement there? It's very clear, he even says that they'll be purified in the future age as if being burned by fire. I'm just wondering what you thought.

So you said the future age, which points to the last day, the final judgment. Sure. So, okay, that's mine, the final judgment, that's perfectly fine, that's not purgatory. That's in this present age being purified. That's the future age. It's not about purgatory, it's about the final judgment. Well, I would disagree, Father Ramsey. We don't believe that purgatory is, for in Catholicism, when we talk about this age or this life, we're not going to strictly call that purgatory,

even though St. Augustine more or less said you're either going to be purified here or in the afterlife, but we believe it to be in the future age to come, and regardless of it being on our particular judgment, or even if you want to talk about it being on the last day, because St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 3, was read in various ways by the fathers, it's still post-mortem, and it's still a post-mortem purification, and won by fire. You oppose the fiery language. How would you reconcile that? All right. So we've got a difference in understanding of what we mean by future age. So when I'm talking about future age, I'm talking about the last day, the end of time.

When you're talking about future age, you're talking about the end of this life of our- No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, no, no, no, I wanna be very clear. I said that future age could be our particular judgment or it could be the general, which would be what you're calling the future age. So either

which way I can go with particular judgment which is the afterlife or general. They're both the afterlife. So either which way they fit the Catholic model they're both the afterlife and either which way St. Maximus the confessor is talking about a post-mortem purification. Even if you want to say for him future ages, the final day, it's still in the afterlife, isn't it? And it's suffering, ticks every box of the thesis that we agreed upon, the thesis that I'm affirming. Right.

Now, this is where the Orthodox are quite distinct. When we talk about the future age, we are talking about after the general resurrection. This is not the same as an afterlife after death now, which is still at a temporal state. That is not the final stage of things. And so future age really only refers to the general resurrection and it doesn't refer to death immediately post-mortem. So his writing, and we do affirm eternal fire, we do affirm that. No matter of fact in Abraham we accept that he talks about, in the story of a rich man, he talks about a flame. So we're not necessarily opposed to the concept of a flame of fire

even post-death, but this particular thing of Maximus is focused on the in an orthodox sense on the last judgment and it's not about immediate post-death judgment. Does Maximus confess or ever say that? Because the clear reading of it's talking about after death, he's talking about after they've died, some are go to heaven, they're caught up in the clouds, yet some are purified through fire. What does it say after the general resurrection the way you just laid it out? Where is that there in the text?

It says in the final age. The future age, not the final age. The future age, yeah, that's what it means. But he's talking about the afterlife. He never says after the general resurrection. He just says the future age. And the future age means after, in the Orthodox sense, the future age means after the general resurrection.

But I would argue that with an orthodoxy, that that is a later addition. I would argue that that is no more in the text of St. Maximus. So my question to you is, where is that clearly in the text of St. Maximus? Because St. Maximus, as I have it in front of me, in fact, by the way, some don't even say future age, some simply say future judgment. So depending on how you translate it, where does it actually say, I understand what Orthodox believe and what you believe, but where does it break down what you believe in St. Maximus? Well, I just told you that is the Orthodox understanding of St. Maximus, he's an Orthodox preacher. So I don't need to say anything more because we understand him as we understand him. I mean, that is a different perspective from us. I can't really say much more than that. That's what it's clearly says it

by saying future judgment is exactly what it is. I do want to add that I don't see that there and future judgment is very clearly the afterlife for him. I don't see it there. So that's why I was saying, I know what Orthodox theology is. I know what you believe. I know how it varies depending on which scholar you're talking to. I understand that very clearly.

I don't think that's clearly in the text. I think that you're adding your theology to it. That's why I'm asking you to show me where because St. Maximus doesn't talk about okay after the general judgment then there could and even that to me I have to be honest that sounds very odd. A punishment after the general resurrection. He's just talking about those at the end of their lives, some go to heaven, and some will be judged through fires and purified. And it's very clear they're going to compare the good and evil deeds. How can this be after the general resurrection? This is either the particular or the general one.

And at that very moment, this is happening at that moment. So I see you separating them, yet I don't see the separation there in St. Maximus. I don't want to be hard on you, but I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm having trouble understanding how that is in St. Maximus. I know your theology,

but I think you're reading a little bit into it. Well, I'm just saying you're reading something into it as well I mean it's quite clear the future the future is not now and there's lots of people who already did now So obviously he's talking about something which is to come and which is the final day and it's not Judgment but he's talking about people's lives not the general judgment so where does it say at the end of each person's life this says it says after the at the at the conclusion of their lives he says some have acquired the perfection of love for god and have elevated the wing of their lives, he says, some have acquired the perfection of love for God

and have elevated the wing of the soul to the virtues according to the apostle. And then he says, some are caught up in the clouds, very clearly that's heaven. He says, they don't come into judgment. And when he uses judgment there, he's very clearly talking about punishment. And then he says, some are not completely perfect.

They have sins and successes and they go into the court of judgment and it says some will be judged through fires and purified. Either which way, whatever model we take, even if you want to say it's the general or particular, it fits my thesis. They're suffering in the afterlife. This is post-mortem suffering and it's purification. So if you agree with that, well then Father Ramsey, my point in this debate is not to come here and trash orthodoxy. It never is. My point is to show that we're a lot closer than people may believe. And I think the more and more we look at this, I think we are. The confession of the Scythias is, as you said, very Catholic, but that's a

pan-orthodox council. St. Maximus is a giant in your faith, and yet I read it and that fits my thesis, the thesis that we worked on and we agreed upon. And I can even go to Mark of Ephesus, and even Mark of Ephesus fits my thesis, and I have no problem with what he says, because, well, let me ask you this. Mark of Ephesus, did he have a problem with more than simply a literal corporal fire? Or did he have any other issues with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory? Because when I read of Mark of Ephesus, as we've read him before, Father, I think he very, very well can fit the Catholic model when it comes to this particular topic. Would you agree

or do you think Mark of Ephesus is irreconcilable? Um again with this sort of thing I until I actually pull out a specific quote of Mark of Ephesus and we discuss a specific quote and I have time to actually read on reflect on it I'm really not in the position to make a different statement on that one way or the other umother. The Phycophysicist wasn't pro the doctrine of purgatory, but at the same time I'm sure you can read what he says because I think a lot of the Orthodox saying it's much easier for you to read into conjunction with what you believe as supporting it because the differences are nuanced differences rather than very in-the-face type stuff. And so in some ways- I think that gets to the heart of the issue though,

Father Ramsey, because in the Catholic faith, there's not a whole lot defined when it comes to purgatory. So as I broke down in my opening statement, as I broke it down, some may have to undergo suffering in the afterlife. I think Mark of Ephesus clearly believes that. He even believes that some suffer in the afterlife. I think Mark of Ephesus clearly believes that. He even believes that some suffer in the afterlife. That's also part of the thesis.

So he says that, in fact, he says that the torments and the cleansing, they even undergo cleansing, the fear, torments and cleansing, he says are greater than any kind of fire. That's a post-mortem suffering. So the way we look at it, he even says prayers for the dead can aid them. That is very Catholic.

The way purgatory ended up being defined within Catholicism, it fits very well here. And I understand why Mark of Ephesus opposed a literal fire, but you know very well, don't you, that the fire never became part of the dogma? Ah, right. Sorry.

Yeah, look, I'm not going to argue whether or not there's literal fire there, and I'm not saying that Roman Catholics... And yes, well, as a matter of fact, as far as suffering goes after death, well, it's clear, and as far as it's related to some form of fire, that's sort of, you got the story of a rich man and talking about some sort of flame. Yes, that's all. You would agree, and you would agree it purifies. You would, so you would, let me ask you this, this is a better one. You would agree that as 1 Corinthians 3 shows, the Greek suffer loss is a punishment and the man in 1 Corinthians 3 is undergoing a post-mortem purification. You would agree with that?

Ah, yeah, in a way, yes, there is a purification. The question is not so much purification as whether or not that purification is such that it removes all sin so that the person can immediately go to paradise for having been so purified. That's a question. So it's not the question of suffering, it's not the question of whether that can be described as a purification, but it's a question of whether that suffices to lift them into paradise at some sort of particular point. Well I've got about 45 seconds and so feel free to take as long as you want to answer it

if Matt so allows it. But let me, you just agreed on all those points, but I would argue that it very clearly does. The Greek is clear in 1 Corinthians 3, he is gonna be saved through purgation, through purification. The Greek, Dia Paras, tells you the man goes to the fire, metaphorical fire, if you will,

but it says he will be saved. So Thessatai, so it's from the Greek so-so, he will be saved. So it very clearly says that as a result of this purgation, he's going to be saved. How would you answer that? All right. And Matt, I'm happy to sort of use this as a kick off my own position. Yeah, that's great. What don't I just sort of reset the time of their father and you have.

Yeah. And I'll click start whenever you begin. I'll click the 20 minute time of father. Right. Yes. Now, this salvation is one of the points of contention. So Augustine does talk about it in the form of doing it. Where some kind of host them is quite different. And so when he talks about it, what we're talking about, yes, there is a purification, all the sins are burnt up. But to be saved is not about being coming into paradise. It's about that the body does not get destroyed, that the person remains for eternity, that the body, so that while we are suffering

in the age to come, eternal death, that we are not annihilated by this. We remain, our body is continued. Salvation means a continuance, not a ceasing to be. And so the body is saved through the fire, so it's not destroyed by the fire. Nevertheless, the person is in suffering and it doesn't move away from this. So this is how St. John Chrysostom reads it.

So now we can put one fire against another, but all I can say is that- Let me answer that. I don't agree with your reading of John Chrysostom. So I know it's your cross-examination, and feel free to cut me off after I answer you, but let me answer that. I don't agree with your reading of John Chrysostom. So I know it's your cross-examination and feel free to cut me off after I answer you, but let me answer you. I think you're wrong. And I know exactly where you're reading from John Chrysostom. In fact, there's multiple areas where Chrysostom exegetes that very passage, Father Ramsay. You're talking about in his homily to the Corinthian commentary. I don't agree with that reading.

And in fact, Dr. Howell would not agree with your reading either. And he is probably the foremost scholar in Chrysostom today. And he's talking about, he believes as many, many other areas, the fire there is talking about the burning fire of the Holy Spirit. I don't think Chrysostom argues that the person remains in the fire. I know that's a classical Protestant argument. I've heard it. I've read it from Calvin. I've read it from Turkim. I don't agree. The reason being because he says the man passes through the fire and he becomes more refined. He passes through and is shinier because he passes through, he says, as if through gold armor. So I don't agree with that reading, but we can move to another area where he exegetes the very same passage. He returns right to it, Father Ramsey, and he's not ambiguous here. In his demonstrations, and this is one many people don't read it because this is tough to find in English, easy to find in the Patrologia Grecae in the Greek, but tougher to find in English. It's his demonstration contra the pagans that Christ is God. He says, Christ will come and demand an accounting of the whole human race.

And then he notes the connection between 1 Corinthians 3 and Malachi. He says he will come like a smelting furnace, like the soap of the foolers. He will refine and purify. And he connects that of 1 Corinthians 3. For the day will declare it since the day is revealed in fire. And David said, God in full manifestation will come. And by this, he was again proclaiming Christ's great second coming. Not great, I added the word great there. I was looking at a different word. So, but he connects it with Malachi 3, which is refined and purified on the day of judgment. He doesn't

believe that he remains there in the fire. So I don't agree with that reading. I understand that's a reading and I know that's just probably fellow Catholics that would agree with you. But I'm gonna side with the eminent scholar Dr. Howell who is a Chrysostom scholar and has looked at the tips and I agree with his reading. All right. Thank you. Yes, so Chrysostom and many other people read it is not talking about salvation, a transfer of the person from one state to another in this particular thing. Either it's a sense of a pure, well, you could look at it in a sense, as I said, all activities which are not good are stopped.

This is a sort of purification. For those, of course, this is not stopped willingly. This is hell. So in the sense, even in hell, there is no impurity. All sin must stop because there can be no continuance of sin. So everything must be purified to some level. But the person who has been so purified, it remains in hell because they're not capable

of being united to God in their will because they have chosen sin. Let me answer that as a cross examination question for you there. Let me answer that. And I'm gonna offer a little bit more pushback with all due respect. Again, I don't agree.

For instance, as we've pointed out before, there are many other areas where Chrysostom's very clear. Even when we look at his homily in 1 Corinthians 45.5, 41.5, everywhere you look, he doesn't interpret that fire as a hellfire or a fire where he's going to remain. He says it. He passes through it. So even if it's very contested,

no one can argue that the man passes through because he says he passes through as if through gold armor. I mean, if I've got gold armor, as the metaphor of 1 Corinthians 3 says, and I pass through fire, I'm gonna look quite shiny in the other side. It's the metaphor of purification. In his homily in 1 Corinthians, he says,

let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified, and this fits in right with your opening statement, Father, if Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. I think Chrysostom also is very clear when it comes to purgatory, but I have to be very clear.

As the confession of Deceitius, as St. Maximus, many great Eastern Fathers, Father, they seem to sound very Catholic to me and they fit the very narrow thesis of our debate today, the thesis that I have undertaken as the affirmative. Okay, as you wish. Now, this is my conversation. Right, so what do you mean? How do you understand the ontological state of being purified from sin? How does that work? How does suffering equate to what sin I do? How do we quantify it? How is it possible to be quantified? And in which way does it count as a wage and where does it say that this is a wage of sin? Is there some sort of fire? So can you please describe how you understand that in a sort of deep metaphysical ontological level for for me. Yeah, that's great. And first off, I don't think that the dogma in and of itself is

metaphysically necessary, but I think that as St. Thomas Aquinas argued, you could put that forth as well. But let me break it down for you, Father, because I think it very clearly is laid out in 1 Corinthians 3, which is why, as far as I've looked, and you're free to prove me wrong, out in 1 Corinthians 3, which is why, as far as I've looked, and you're free to prove me wrong, I've challenged many to. And I'm not saying that I'm right, but the massive majority of fathers I've looked at, I've looked at over 30 of them that actually exegete

1 Corinthians 3. And I keep discovering new ones. I just found St. Maximus. And I find that those that actually offer an exegesis, all of them describe it in a purgatorial fashion. Now it very well could be that you say, William, I've got one. And I say, Father, OK, you've got one, but I have yet to find one. And I've looked in the patrilogy.

I've looked in the Father's very in-depth. And it's for a very clear reason. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is talking about those that are factious. And he draws a distinction between those that have built with gold, silver and precious stones. And as I pointed out to you Father, every time precious metals are utilized in conjunction with the Greek diaporos, it's always in reference to purification. So right now we know there's purification going on in 1 Corinthians 3. But is this for the works? Of course, these are metaphors for the works, how the man built. Now if he built poorly, he's got wood hay and straw.

And that goes to the fire. Now can he still be saved? He can be, Father. And you asked where is the text of the reward being salvific? It's right there. You look, it will be revealed with fire. Actually, let me rewind it back a little bit. It says, the day will bring it to light. It's right there. You look, it will be revealed with fire. Actually, let me rewind it back a little bit. It says, the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. You look at the Greek there, that reward is utilized in other areas for salvation. That man is saved. But then what about the man whose works burn up? He's gonna suffer loss, Father, that's why I ask you. That Greek word zeniothestetai is utilized

frequently for a suffering all over the Greek Septuagint. He will suffer loss or punishment, if you will. But that man too, Father, is saved. But how is he saved? He's saved through fire. So we've got everything that fits the thesis. There's post-mortem punishment and there is salvation and there is purification. And I dare say this is why the fathers were very clear at the beginning with Saint Cyprian that this is a purgatorial passage. Right, we're talking about some sort of purification for fire, okay I'm not going to argue that, but how are we quantifying this in some sort of temporal way? That so-and-so receives one year, two years, 50 years, a thousand years, and what happens to that time in the last judgment? Is it suddenly squashed in the large run-through?

How is that possible? If it needs to be done at a metaphysical level, if it doesn't need to be done in metaphysical way? If it needs to be done at a metaphysical level, if it doesn't need to be done at a metaphysical level, why does it need to be done at all? Could you please explain that? So that's a great question. First off, let me clarify by noting that it's very clear, in my opinion, that this is post-mortem. The fathers are clear about that,

and I think even the modern day exegetes recognize the day is post-mortem. Where I think that we are having a little bit of a an issue father, if you ask me, okay, well, how do we know this is temporal? Okay. I'll answer that in just a moment. But then you went further and you said, how many days, how many years? We don't even know how the concept of time works in the afterlife, father, the dogma in and of itself doesn't say one has to go to purgatory for a year, two years, three years. The dogma is very clear. Is purgatory a place? Well, it could be. Is it a state of being? Well, it could be. If you ask me what I think it is, I think it's a temporal state that one goes through. They eventually are saved. So

the dogma in and of itself doesn't say it's one, two, three or four years, Father. We don't know how the concept of purgation works in the afterlife. We don't know the concept of time in the afterlife. But to touch upon what I think is the most important, because you're asking questions that are not bound up with a dogma, the metaphysical is not bound up with a dogma, and then the other question, how do we know it's temporal? How do we know it's particular or the general? Number one, in Catholic theology, this could be the particular, Saint Robert Bellarmine believed it was a particular judgment, Saint Alphonsus Liguori believed it was a particular, but some

fathers believed it was a general. To me, it doesn't matter because in Catholic dogma, the dogma says in the afterlife post-mortem, it could be instantaneous, or who knows how it happens, but some will undergo a temporal purification that is suffering. Now, everything is clear here. The man is gonna be punished. He's punished, he suffers loss, semi-authenticity. Now, how do we know it's temporal? Well, Father, it says right there.

He will suffer loss, yet he himself will be saved. Well, you're not going to continually suffer loss, ameo thesithi and continually be purged. If you're eventually saved, so, so the Greek word is clear there. He will be saved. So the very layout of the Greek of one Corinthians three is clear. The man undergoing purgatory or purgatorial purification, if you will, is going to be saved. So it's very clearly temporal, I think. Okay. Now, if he's, well, so we are defining whether or not the suffering soul will be freed

from suffering and punishment and attain paradise. All right. So we haven't whether or not the suffering soul will be freed from suffering and punishment and attain paradise. Alright, so we haven't actually stated the time. So if we are just talking about the person at the moment of death immediately suffers some sort of purification, go to paradise, then what is purgatory? If it's an immediate thing? If it is not immediate, and why would we be wanting to offer sacrifices and stuff if they're not actually somewhere at the time we're offering sacrifice, they've already been accepted. If it's not there and it's prior to

the last judgment, then there must be some temporality of the actual punishment. Not that we're talking about it being a temporal, as in the immediate post-death, before the last judgment, but it must be some quantifiable time that they're spending there, or some quantifiable amount that needs to be cleansed. And can you please explain how such an amount can be done, especially given that a man laboring forever, eternity, cannot redeem his soul, no matter how much he does. So how are you defining the amount here, and what way is that amount being somehow reduced? Well let me answer that by again reminding you, but the actual thesis of the debate today is, is there payment or satisfaction after death? Let me remind you, 1 Corinthians 3, there is satisfaction,

there's suffering, suffering loss for sins that have not been repented, such that a suffering soul, so if he's suffering satisfaction, if he's suffering as the Greek zemiotecetai clearly shows, it's temporal and he eventually attains paradise as further in the text it says he will be saved. So everything in the debate thesis that I affirmed today is in 1 Corinthians 3 and I've yet to hear a refutation of it, but again you seem to be trying to pigeonhole me into defining You seem to be trying to pigeonhole me into defining the unknowable. Now the unknowable being how on earth, William, does time operator work in the afterlife? And to that I say, Father Ramsey, I don't know. And neither does the first pontiff, Bishop of Rome, in 2 Peter, he says,

Do not forget this one thing, dear friends, with the Lord a day. It's like a thousand years. And a thousand years are like a day. We simply don't know how the afterlife does work. Is there a sense of time? And you said if this happens instantaneous, how do prayers help? Now, here's the other thing, Father. Again, we don't know how time works.

We simply try to tell people as the best that we know, according to the Bible. Now, Judas Maccabeus, when he prayed for them, he didn't stop and think and say, well, you know what, is he going to suffer for 10, 20 years? Maybe they weren't even suffering anymore. But it was a holy and pious thought to pray for the dead so that they'd be loosed from their sins. So he still did it. That is why we do it today. Now we don't think our loved ones will be in purgatory forever if there's a concept of time in the afterlife, but we pray for them to the very end because even if they're not undergoing post-mortem purification, those prayers are still going to be efficacious because we pray for them and we're connected to the body of Christ.

All our prayers are helpful. The prayer of a righteous man avails much, as James says. So whether or not there's a concept of time in the afterlife, we don't know. I tend to believe that the great saints perhaps, now this is terrifying, if great saints believed that previous great saints had to undergo purification, I'd better get my life straight. Because I tend to believe that some that lived greater lives, perhaps their purgation is instantaneous. And perhaps maybe it's a state of being.

Or perhaps, as Hippolytus of Rome believed, maybe it's a place, as we read in the Passion of Perpetual Felicitous, where they believed it was a place. That's how I'll just cut you short now. Yeah, no problem. Right, yes. Now again, I'm not happy with the way you are talking about first Corinthians 3 about insane through fire It's clear on least one text that each will abide

You remain in the fire with some children for solstice and this is used by a number of people like this So I'm not happy with you trying to claim that that is a proof text It's a dispute text at best and in matter of fact, I think it's quite opposite to what you're saying. But I don't think you have any justification to claim it as a proof text. I don't care which scholar you pull out. This is a text that is disputed at levels way

beyond any scholar today. So I just have to count you short on that claim. That's fine. I'll respond to that when you're ready. I'm gonna respond to that claim though. Well luckily you responded to that comment. That's not my question now. Yeah, it's a cross-examination so I'm gonna respond to that comment. Oh no, no, no. I'm gonna cut you short now and there because I'm gonna ask my other question. Whenever you do allow me to talk I'll respond to it. How is the payment of Christ not satisfying already the payment? So we're talking about an extra payment in our thesis here, but Christ has already paid it to the perfection of those being sanctified. So in what way is this extra suffering or fire adding anything to the payment of Christ.

So thanks for that. Thanks for those two questions that I get to answer now. The first one being that yeah, I agree with you. Perhaps the Chrysostom text is is perhaps opposed by some people and I understand you probably don't care what Dr. Howell says that's perfectly fine with me. You believe that it's talking about the man abiding in fire, but the very text I just quoted you haven't refuted where it says, but just as if a man having golden armor on were to pass through a river of fire, he comes from crossing it all the

brighter. I have to be very clear. I've never heard of a man crossing a river that remains in it perpetually. But that is what I think Chrysostom is very clear there. So we may dispute it until the cows come home. I think he's very Catholic in his reading. As far as Christ paying the sins, we're not arguing that we are paying any kinds of sins. This is why we believe that we suffer passively. We call it satisfacitio, if you will, or satisfaction.

We're not paying for anything. We're not paying, anything. We're not paying, we're not doing the prayers for ourselves. That's why we need others to pray for us. But Father Ramsey, as you said yourself, you believe that prayer for the dead is efficacious for those souls in the afterlife. We agree with that exactly. That's very clearly laid out in 2 Maccabees 12, Father. We're not seeing anything different from that. So today, you've brought up a number of things like whether there's time in the afterlife or not

and what have you, but the strict thesis of the debate, Father Anselm, I think you should. Well, just touch your seat there, because we've only got a minute left. Go ahead. So this last point is that in Cosostomy, you make a point about him passing through the golden arm and shining up.

Immediately after that he talks about if he's to pass through it with hay so far from profiting he destroys himself behind. He doesn't pass through, he remains in the fire and is destroyed and that's why he says actually that's why he corrects it and says he isn't actually destroyed. He is he abides in the fire. So so it rather than disappearing, he's not passing through to another side of his hey, he is destroyed and remains in the fire. That is how it goes. So let me answer that because I got about 15 seconds. I disagree. I think that there's multiple different images there.

One man is remaining in the fire. One passes through, Father. There's no way at all you can conflate the passages. Does he interpret the wood hay and straw man as remaining there? Very well, you could argue that. I would dispute that. But you cannot argue that one metaphorical image

that he's putting forward is a man that does undergo purification. So we can look at two different individuals here, but one, no matter which way you cut it, does undergo purification. All right. Thanks guys. We're going to move. Sorry, father. Yeah. We're going to move into a time of Q and a right now. We're going to begin with our local supporters. And if we have time after that, we'll get to comments here.

I'd ask that you guys try to spend about no more than two minutes each on these questions if you can, just so we can get through as many as possible. Derek Cummins says, and we'll have you answer this first, William, and then Father. Can you just, well, actually, let me change my mind. Father, if you could answer this first, since you're probably in a better position to answer this, can you discuss toll houses and if that would be an acceptable view for Catholics to hold? So I want both of your takes on this, Father. Right, toll houses, yeah, there's different ways of understanding it. How I understand it, there is a particular judgment after death, and I think we both

agree on this point, and that this judgment will go through our various deeds which we've done in the body whether good or bad. And the toll houses are a sort of a representative of this particular judgment, the accusations brought against us by demons etc, the defense of angels and whether in these particular points we have shown particular repentance, goodwill, and a life of virtue, or whether it is something which we have fallen into an unrepentant state

and stuff like that. So that's how I understand it. Not literally a tollhouse of paying a particular price, but the fact of a particular judgment and the arguments for and against you from angels and demons. Yeah, and then Michael specifically, sorry, William, can this be an acceptable view for Catholics to hold? Yeah, it can be, Matt, as long as a Catholic doesn't try to foist it upon another as part of the dogma. You find it in Basil, you find it in Saint Irenaeus,

where they seem to think of the trials and tribulations that one may undergo. And I tend to agree with what Father Ramsey says there. Now, do I believe that toll houses is a view that a Catholic should hold to? No, I don't. I think there are very few fathers that held to it. There's not a whole lot, so I don't think it's one that's very viable and number two, it's not like like purgatory. It's not scriptural. So that that to me would be the bigger issue. So, yeah, that's my short answer. All right. We got a question here from Michael Lofton for William. Since purgatory includes decreasing punishment of venial sins there, where is this exact teaching in either scripture or the early church and give specific wording? teaching in either scripture or the early church and give specific wording?

Yeah, that's great. Thank you for that question, Michael. Is that is let me just be clear. Is that Michael Lofton? Yes. Awesome. Michael Lofton. Shout out to Michael. Yeah, Michael, I would argue that it's very clearly laid out in one Corinthians three, Michael. Now, what is he talking about in one Corinthians three? I think you've got to rewind it and notice he's talking about those that are factious. But notice what St. Paul also does. In many areas he talks about those that kill the body or kill the soul. He says in verse 17 that they'll be destroyed. And that's, by the way, I'm sorry Universalist, that really doesn't fit in with you. Neither does it fit in with annihilationist because it's a perpetual kind of destroying which is hellish right there in verse 17. That's mortal sin. But those that built with wood hand straw, those that were factious

and had what we would call venial sins, as St. Jerome also interpreted it, well those go through the fire, Michael, but they are eventually saved. Now the ones that have built with gold, silver, and precious stones, they receive the reward immediately, but they are eventually saved. Now the ones that have built with gold, silver, and precious stones, they receive the reward immediately you read. They get their reward. I believe, I forget the Greek word there. But even the ones that built with poorer material, and by the way these metaphors are used multiple times, why is gold, silver, and precious stones used? Because that was how Solomon's temple was built to show the beauty of how you lived your life. What Hayden Strom?

Not so beautiful, but that man is saved. They are lesser sins and he is saved as well. How do we know they're lesser? Because in verse 17, the one that destroyed the body, he himself will be destroyed perpetually in the afterlife. Father, you want to respond? There's not much I can say. I've already had a debate on the interpretation of

Corinthians 3 and if that's the only one that's there. Yeah, I don't see anything, there are some mentions of things like mortal sin and unforgivable sins like the Holy Spirit. So we do make a distinction between the quality of, et cetera. But a specific teaching as Michael was up for which Michael was asking, I haven't seen that clearly stated in those words, the best texts are the ones which William has already pointed out.

We've already sort of discussed the pros and cons of those. Matt, let me make one clarification, Matt, that I thought in the chat. I just want to say real quick, if I can, please forgive me. I got that wrong. That was actually a question from BornAgainRN who you debated before. That was my bad. The next question I'll ask is from Michael Lofton, but feel free if you want to add something

short. Yeah, definitely. I just want to make clarification. Somebody thought that I was saying that annihilationism and universalism were the same. No, I'm saying that one Corinthians three denies both of those. Okay, this here is from Michael Lofton. So apologies again. He says and this question is for you father and then William, you can respond. Are individual Orthodox allowed to determine what they will and won't accept as authoritative from a pan-Orthodox synod? The question is not so much of individuals can determine or stuff. It is what the church, when you confess to the faith, determines is what is dogmatically

binding to all people. And as far as I'm aware when becoming orthodox, that is limited to seven ecumenical councils and the holy scriptures. And so any post councils after that may have great weight. And so there's the eighth ecumenical council, the ninth of which St. Poteos the Great, we basically most people take it,

but I wouldn't force it as binding on everybody. The council of Mark of Ephesus post of Constantinople, 1484, called itself an ecumenical council. Again, I would take it of great weight, but it wouldn't be absolutely binding anyone. The councils of the 1350s, again, of St. Gregory Palamas, which was sometimes called the ninth ecumenical councils. Again, a great weight, I wouldn't sort of start arguing with him, but again, I wouldn't find them absolutely binding because they're not part of what we absolutely define as faith. So if the bishop was ordained, these are not the councils written out which he's sworn to uphold and to keep.

So it's not so much whether people can pick a truce, it's what is actually officially binding as being a member of the Orthodox Church to what are councils which are recognised or widely accepted or have a wide representation, but are not those which have been written into the bishop's prayers as being those he has to guard as part of the doctrine of the Wilford Ox Church. Okay, William, did you want to give a quick response to that? I can get two minutes, right? Yep. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Michael, you bring up a great point there, Michael. I don't know

of any, and I looked up many Orthodox scholars that wrote about Jerusalem, and I didn't know that it was okay to deny some aspects of the Pan-Orthodox Council, but I learned something new every day, as I said earlier. And again, I think that really does highlight the issue today because we agreed upon the parameters and we talked it out. People may be wondering, we will remain friendly even after this. We talked about the thesis in a very friendly way.

And if you look at the thesis, there has, in my belief, been one person that has filled it out today. And that would be the one that wrote out the confession of the Scythias. It fills out everything. There's payment of satisfaction after death for unrepentant sins and there's suffering and punishment. So to me, it's problematic,

as we've seen multiple fathers of the East that teach exactly what the Catholic faith teaches today in regards to Purgatory, exactly what was dogmatized. And we do this in all charity. This is exactly why we say, when you look at those great fathers, don't only look at the Latin ones with fear of the Greek ones, they were all Catholic.

They were Catholic and we clearly see that even when Protestantism came knocking on the door for orthodoxy, because they came at a later time, we dealt with it before, we gave them the blueprints at Trent, when it came knocking on the door for orthodoxy, they adopted a lot of the language that the Catholic Church documentized in regards to Purgatory and no criticism,

rightly so, they should have. Torment in the afterlife, despair, satisfaction, as I read the confession of Deceitius, they adopted all of that. The bigger issue is not that they adopted all of that. The bigger issue is that today, it seems like they seem to be moving away from it, even to the point of denying pan-Orthodox councils. And I think we want to call them back to the faith of

their fathers. And we clearly see today that I believe that that faith of their fathers is very clearly the teaching of purgatory, is enshrined by Catholicism. This question comes from local supporter Joe Ward. He says, and we'll ask you this first, William and then Father can have the final say. But how exactly does the church determine if someone is in purgatory or heaven? And how do they not make that pronouncement on the damned? Yeah. So that's a great question. And the church doesn't come out. So let me give you an example. If a loved one of yours were to die tomorrow, you're not going to go to a mass and hear the priest say that that person is in hell

or suffering in hell. Rather, there is a hope, Matt. And that hope is representative of the hope that Judas Maccabeus had. And what kind of hope is that? That they fell asleep in godliness, as 2 Maccabees 12 says. And we hope that every one of our loved ones falls asleep in godliness, as 2 Maccabees 12 says. And we hope that every one of our loved ones falls asleep in godliness.

Now, is it possible that some fall asleep and that we pray for them and they're not undergoing a purgation of the afterlife? It most definitely is. But God is not limited by that notion. Our prayers are still going to be efficacious no matter what because we're the body of Christ and the prayer of a righteous man avails much we are told. So God doesn't have limitations that's the most important thing we must realize and the church more importantly the church doesn't come out and say well we dogmatically define or we definitively define that this person is in hell or that person

is in hell but we have some pretty good indication from the fathers and from the Bible that the Judas is not in a good place. So that's very clear from the scriptures, but as far as the church coming out and clearly defining that for everyone, the church doesn't do that. How does the church canonize saints? It's a different thing. He asked about purgatory and again, we don't think everyone is undergoing purgatory, but either which way, prayer is always recommended till our dying day, prayer is recommended. Father, do you want to respond at all? Well, the church, there are definite statements of a church. Christ gave the keys to St. Peter and to the apostles to loosen the bind and what is bound on heaven is

bound on earth and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. And so in the states and ecumenical councils certain people like the Storius and the Ascortus and the Eftikius and stuff in Oregon, they are condemned, they are anathematized, they are in hell, they are received for judgment of Christ. And we know this, and this is, this has been established in these places. And also when the church testifies to the saints, where we know that they are in heaven. So in that sense, the church can, and all the fathers can define that certain people are saved or not. But this is extremely few. It doesn't go around each individual soul immediately after death.

And so for the vast majority, the state is not known for sure. And we continue our prayers for them. But we do have a few which are virtues of miracles, et cetera. So clearly, we declare them as saints, put them in our calendars. We offer prayers to them. We pray and ask them for intercessions, et cetera.

We paint icons of them. And there are certain where we condemn as heretics, as sinners, and are cast off out of communion of the church, which we don't do that for. So yes, so the church has the authority to do this judgment. Um, but it exercises that really in a sort of formal public manner. Okay. Thanks.

I'm going to insert a question of my own here and we'll begin with, uh, with you, father, what's the least amount of change William would have to make to his position for you to agree with it. And then I'm going to ask the same thing to you, William. What's the least amount of change that Father would have to make his position for Catholics to accept it? Father? Well, we haven't really gone into the debate to a larger degree to ask the question of when perfection is attained. So from an Orthodox point of view, when we're talking about a soul in a temporal state of punishment is saved, that, or perfected, that's only possible at the last

resurrection. So if there's any benefit for a soul prior, that's just simply a move to paradise. But that's a question because of the sense there's a gulf between them. But we do permit that some souls will be saved at the last day. So what the minimum thing to get removed is any sense that a soul receives its final perfection from purgatory, true to prayers, etc. So that would be it. And also that there can be a quantifiable

amount of time or punishment or something of that nature that removes sinx or y of whatever magnitude so that there's any sense of being able to quantify this Or the temporal make this temple Thank You Father William Thank you very much for that Matt. I won't go over two minutes. I promise. Um Matt my goal coming into the debate today I told a lot of people was to at the end if we are able to say that we are way

closer than we are far apart that would mean more to me than anything else I love my Orthodox brothers and sisters I love them with all my heart I father Ramsey and me are good friends he penned a portion of a book that I co-authored on the Eucharist he was one of the ones that I went to he's a near and dear friend of mine I have many friends that are Orthodox, but my message is one that comes directly from the heart, Matt. That message is we would need them to accept their own councils. Like the pan-Orthodox, when we read about the confession of the Scythias, just accept that. It's not asking a whole lot. Accept that decree that is talking about purgatory. Accept your own Greek fathers.

Clement of Alexandria, I know a lot of Orthodox don't accept him as a father, he is a father for us, Basil the Great, Chrysostomos, and many others. The own father, accept the scripture. When we were united, we were unified as one church, we say the Catholic church was united, put the Bible Bible together and it's very clearly taught in Scripture. So in my opinion it is not a great divide Matt, it's calling them back to the very fathers that we share in common that are they're not look I know we talked about Mark of Ephesus is really the only one we talked about that we don't share in common as a saint.

Chrysostom is a great saint of ours. Basil the Great is a great saint of ours. So we share a lot of these in common. And we share the very same scripture, longer canon in common as well, even though it may not be exact all the time at least. And all we do is ask them to return to the faith, that ancient faith that we once shared, unified. And I don't think there's a great divide. We agree on all the faith, that ancient faith that we once shared, unified, and I don't think there's

a great divide. We agree on all the essentials, but there is clearly suffering in the afterlife. I think that's one aspect that might tend to get overlooked at times. All right, thank you. This question comes from local supporter Weave88. He says, and we'll address this to you first, William, putting aside defined dogma and development of Catholic doctrine, there have been many reported apparitions of souls in purgatory throughout the centuries that describe the experience of purgatory. How useful are the reports of apparitions to sway or not sway a person into a belief of purgatory? Great, great question, Matt. And I think

Great, great question, Matt. And I think that any apparition, as long as it does not contradict Catholic dogma and perhaps offers up something edifying out of it, is one that is worthy to look at. Now, the reason earlier I said that perhaps purgatory could be a place for some, a state of being for others, or instantaneous for others. Because at very well could be all of those. For certain individuals it might just be instantaneous, some it might be a place as we read of in Perpetuum Felicitis, as we read of in St. Hippolytus of Rome. I guess it really just depends and that's where we are finite in our knowledge of the afterlife.

And as I said earlier, I hope I don't find out for a long time, God willing. So when it comes to those kinds of things, I think apparitions can be quite valuable, because some of those apparitions are warning people, get your life in order. And how different are they, Matt, than the warning from the great Saint Paul when he says to get your life together in one Corinthians three. Why? Well, they were factious. Well, I'm from Apollo's. I'm from him. I'm from them. Well, guess what? The day is coming, but it really is coming fast, man, because our life is not a whole lot of time. Let us make the best of it while we are here on earth. Let us heed the warnings of those great saints that came before us.

Those that have St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9, 27, they have run their race. They have gotten their crown. And we believe that crown to be eternal heaven. And I think we can heed their warnings. And if we heed the warnings from some of those apparitions, um, I think some of those warnings are magnificent ones because they turn you to Christ. But again, we would need to evaluate it because we know as St. Augustine and others say, some apparitions are of the demonic. So we always

have to weigh them and compare them, make sure they do not contradict Catholic dogma. Thank you, Father. Feel free. Yeah, well in a similar way. I mean these things are useful but it only goes so far as they are consistent with one's particular faith position because they could also be delusions. They can be just sort of things that are shown to people outside the church that reinforce the heresy, the demonic delusion. So it's hard to know. They should be taken with seriously though. I mean, you should listen to them and take them and not discard them off hand. But we always must take these things with a pinch of salt. So they're useful. They can be encouraging to

people in the faith who receive them to confirm confirm their Faith in their beliefs, but at the same time We've got a very careful about how far we take them or what we do using for defining doctrine as such Because they're so open to be potential for delusion, etc. So yeah, they are good supporters of one's particular faith what has and We should take them seriously but we shouldn't be using these sort of things to define doctrine or in a matter of doctrinal dispute as sort of being gotcha type things because they are open to, as I said, delusional mistakes. All right, final question before we conclude with 10 minutes closing statements each, and this will direct this to you first, Father,

and then here it is. This comes from Alexander Harding. He says, I'm Catholic, but I'm wondering why we don't find more unequivocal, concrete biblical references to purgatory. This is an objection Protestants usually give me. And no, you're not a Catholic father, but you might have some thoughts on this. Well, again, yeah, we have the same we have the same quarrel. We have the same question. We just we have distinction because we are actually a lot closer. We're

debating about particular nuances of what's going on. We do share a lot. And what we mean by that is that we do offer prayers for those departed and we do believe that it is beneficial to them to do so whether it's arms giving or if it's repetitions done at the liturgy etc we've got a long tradition we share this so in as far as our activity goes as a church we do the same thing so we definitely believe that there and I think it's definitely scriptural support for this type of thing is definitely a deep tradition and Christian practice that goes back 2,000 years for this type of thing. There's definitely a deep tradition in Christian practice that goes back

2,000 years for this type of thing. A Chrysostom is quite clear of the benefit of praying for this, and this is fourth century. So yeah, it's deeply rooted. The question is the specific type of the definition which is given in Trent, for example, it is a bit vague exactly what it is stating, but the point of payment and satisfaction there, we don't see that in the scriptures, but certainly there is a suffering, there's a benefit of prayers, etc. and I think there's enough scriptures to support that. Thank you, William. I want to assure Alexander, I believe, right?

Alexander, correct. Awesome. Alexander, I want to assure you that Purgatory is very biblical. Now, I want to remind you to think of the concepts laid out in my opening statement of the fact that God purifies and God

chastises. Once you have laid those down and realized that, I want you to read 1 Corinthians 3 with an open mind. And then I want you to look at the interpretations from the early church followers and note how they interpreted 1 Corinthians 3. And I think you will realize that what is occurring there is talking about the day that That is in the afterlife.

Now if you want to say, well, William particular or the general judgment, I tend to agree with Robert Bellarmine, Saint Robert Bellarmine, that is a particular judgment. Now, even if you take it to be the general, it's postmortem in the afterlife. And what is happening there is a man, he's using a metaphor for mankind in general, but a man is going through a fire. Now it's a metaphorical fire to talk about how one is saved, certain people with lesser sins. We know these are not mortal because the man is not destroyed like the man in verse 17 is. And in verse 15 we read of that man, and he is saved. The Greek

word so-so. There's no way around it. He is saved, but through fire. And I want to recommend that you go over it again, because the Greek word is through fire. People will say, well, William, diaparos, you know, peros might sound like purification, but it just means fire. We agree with you. But whenever diaparas is utilized, and Greek scholars have noted this, whenever diaparas is utilized, together with precious metals as listed exactly there in 1 Corinthians 3, a purification is always happening. Now, what purification is happening here? In the afterlife, it's happening to the man. And my two minutes are up, but I hope

that helps. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you very much. This has been great guys. Before we move into our closing statements, I might be helpful if each of you told our viewers where they could learn more about you or find your work online. Father? I lurk around on Facebook on the PayPal I lurk around on Facebook on the PayPal site and the Filio Quay site. I keep an eye on that every now and again. I've got a blog called Sacred Traditions at WordPress. And apart from that, I basically don't have a sort of major public presence.

I just sort of come as asked for debates, discussions and things like that. So my preference is to be someone who's there if wanted and anyone's free to contact me via Facebook or messages or something. If they're asking a question about church life, time for chatting I don't really have, but if it's about church life I'm'm always available. So, but yeah, that's about it. Well, Father, if you think of it, feel free to email me those links. And if you do that, I'll put them in the description so people can more easily find those places. William? Before I tell people where to find me, I want to add a few more things for the very humble Father Ramsey. Father Ramsey is a great author as well. He has some great books he's written.

And the reason why I was so edified by his presence here is he's a very clear thinker as well. Even though we may disagree on certain things I want the audience to know him. We remain friends, we dialogue very often, we stay in touch. He's been on my show numerous times and I want to say that I've been very edified by his presence as well. And I look forward to dialoguing with him more in the future. Now where can people find me? They can go to earlychurchfathers.com or to patristicpillars.com. Either one will take them to my webpage. And they can look me up at Patristic Pillars on YouTube. They'll find my channel there where I do a bunch of stuff there, a bunch of videos. Or I also co-host the Apocrypha

Apocalypse with my brother, Gary Machuta. We talk about all things canon related. We've had Father Ramsay on for an incredible show. So people can find me there and there they will find everything I'm working on, including multiple new books. God willing, they will be out soon. And just really more than anything else, Matt, more than people looking up the stuff we do and anything else, please audience, pray for everyone you see here on the panel. Pray for Matt, pray for me, pray for everyone you see here in the panel. Pray for Matt,

pray for me, and pray for Father Ramsey as well. Thanks, William. Okay, we're going to move into a time of closing statements. Each debater has 10 minutes and then we will wrap up. William, whenever you begin, I'll click the timer. Thank you very much for that, Matt. And I've had an incredible time. I've had a very good time, been very edified in my dialogue with Father Ramsey. And time is just, you know, it goes so fast because we do have limited time here on Earth. We know that much. And the time has flown. We are now in closing statements. And to close, I will say that I think today's debate has been very clear in the sense that, again, my conclusion would be, I don't think there's a massive divide between us. And I think that if you compare what the great saints have to say that are Eastern and Latin,

West and East, East and West, they are telling you the very same thing. They are talking about a post-mortem punishment in the afterlife, purification. We read St. Maximus the Confessor, who we believe he is Catholic. And of course the Orthodox love him as well. But there's no way around what he says. He's talking about when somebody dies they undergo post-mortem purification. There's suffering there. Now if people want to say, well, you know, he doesn't talk about time, maybe it's a general

resurrection, that's fine. According to the limits of the Catholic dogma, which the Catholic dogma is very clear as I laid out in my opening statement, I laid out all the pillars. He teaches it clearly. Now there's a very clear reason why the language of fire didn't become dogma. But I would also argue I understand why the fathers at Florence were pushing the fiery language. Because the fathers were overwhelming in using it. Now did they mean a literal, corporal fire? Probably not.

Maybe some did. A lot didn't. A lot meant the fiery love of Christ, the fiery love of the Holy Spirit. And for that reason, out of respect, that didn't become bound up with the dogma. But what did become bound up in the dogma has been fulfilled today, thanks be to God, in the confession of Decithius.

So, and I said it earlier that tongue in cheek kind of way, or as the British call it, in a cheeky kind of way, I say that the Orthodox are not so far divided from us. They, all they've got to do is accept their own councils and their own fathers. And very clearly that is the case today because we have one person up here today who can affirm the language of decree 18 of the confession of the Deceitius. And then we have the other in the Reverend Dr. Ramsey, a top Orthodox scholar that is denying the very important language of a pan-Orthodox synod.

Now I know that this is not at the level of an ecumenical council, nobody's arguing that, but I've never heard of a scholar denying the very clear language of a pan-Orthodox council. Now if there is confusion there within orthodoxy, where else are there matters that are not settled? And for that, I'd recommend people go look at our Immaculate Conception debate. So I think a lot of it is nuance or a lot of it is language that may separate us.

But then it gets down to the nitty gritty and these are important issues for the audience to maybe thinking, well, how important are they? They're important because if the fathers in the Bible talk about a punishment in the afterlife, well, you better believe that that is something you should believe in. And the fathers do talk about that. We heard of multiple ones. We talked about Cyprian, Basil the Great in his commentary on Isaiah interprets 1 Corinthians 3 in that manner. And of course, we realize that Chrysostom is a disputed text, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Pergatorial language, Perg cares what scholar, I quote, that he's right about them. But what does matter is a very clear language in Chrysostomus, and it's purgatorial language.

I heard, I really be very clearly honest, I heard no good refutation when it came to St. Maximus. Mark of Ephesus we didn't get time to go into, but I'd like you to look at him. He calls the afterlife. He really goes against that fiery language. But oh, that's fine, OK. But he says the torment and the fear in the afterlife

is greater than any kind of fire, greater punishment. So this is Mark of Ephesus as well, who his language is very purgatorial. It is purgatorial. And that's his homily on purgatory. When you've got Mark of Ephesus, whose language is very Catholic, you've got the pan-Orthodox Council, whose language is very Catholic and Father Ramsey said, well, it's because it adopted very Catholic language. We realize that it did and for that we applaud them. But if the fathers at

Jerusalem, if the fathers there were able to adopt that language without issue, language of, let me just read the thesis, language that indicates there is satisfaction after death for sins that haven't been repented such that a suffering soul will be freed from any suffering or punishment. If they're very clear there, then the issue really is when will our Orthodox brothers and sisters realize there shouldn't be so many stumbling blocks? All you've got to do is go to your very own councils. All you have to do is go to your very own fathers and you'll realize there are not so many differences. Well, or there shouldn't be. I think as time goes on, people see the language of Purgatory as too Latin, but you shouldn't, because it's not too Latin. I'll tell you what it is. It's too Catholic. That is why at times it

gets rejected. I pointed out how the fathers interpreted. It's too Catholic. That is why at times it gets rejected. I pointed out how the fathers interpreted 1 Corinthians 3 as purgatorial, a kind of suffering. There was no pushback from the Greek words, Amyothestai, because it is indicative of a post-mortem punishment of some sort. Now I was asked, well, what about the time or what have you, the metaphysical, a lot of things that are not bound up in the Catholic dogma. And whether or not I believe there is time, it's not a time in the afterlife, it's not part of today's debate, but it is a great, great question for a roundtable or for discussion later. But everything that we agreed upon in the thesis, we clearly see

how the fathers and we've got Father Ramsey brought up Augustine. And I don't pit Augustine against Chrysostom, because even though they use different language, they agreed on a post-mortem purification in the afterlife. Now I know about the debates at Florence, and I know about how the Greeks were not very happy with the fiery language. They were not happy that there was a text from Theotirate that seemed to indicate Purgatory was a place. But we can erase all of that because the fiery language is not dogmatic.

And you don't need that pseudonymous text from Theotirate to show that Theotirate taught Purgatory. So a number of Greek fathers, as we talked about earlier, taught Purgatory. Now, this is my closing as we talked about earlier taught Purgatory. Now this is my closing statement. I'm not going to introduce new fathers or read them because it wouldn't be fair. There's no more time to cross examination or rebuttal. I'm only going to point the audience towards looking it up. I want them to look up how 1 Corinthians 3 was exegeted. Everything we look at there fits the

Catholic dogma. 2 Maccabees 12, if there is a kind of losing, a release in the afterlife that these men needed according to Judas Maccabeus and his men, you can better believe that there's a reason why this was viewed as a purgatorial passage in the great Ephraim. We look at it also interpreted that manner by Origen as well. We don't believe Origen was a church father, but he was a great church writer. Don't get me wrong, because then there are going to be 20 videos that people do about me saying that I believe that he was a church father. He was not a church father. He was rightly condemned. But with that being said, we've talked a whole lot about prayer today, a lot about it.

And it really would touch my heart if people pray for everybody. We've got a lot of people watching. I know that and probably afterwards a lot more will be watching. But there is a the son of a near and dear friend of mine, a friend of mine by the name of Stephen. And his son's name is Dryden and he is suffering from a rare kind of illness and I do hope I want to use my final minute to ask the audience to pray for him on my YouTube community page. I will post his GoFundMe later if anybody is able to help with whatever amount. Remember the greatest kind of help is prayer. Pray for Dryden, pray for Stephen and his family because we know today we talked about

prayer a whole lot, and we realize that when we pray for the dead, it is incredibly efficacious. But when we, who are alive, storm the gates of heaven and pray in unity, pray that the Lord heal him, pray the Lord give him many years years because he deserves to grow up happy and healthy by the side of his family. That is more important than any kind of debate in my opinion. Praying for one another and today I would like to use my last 20 seconds to say I pray for our unity one day. The unity of the East and the West. I pray that the fractures are healed one day and I think they can be. I don't think there are insurmountable differences. And my last 10 seconds, I hope that Father prays for me because I will be praying for you Father, because I think you are a magnificent

scholar and thank you for your time and everybody thank you for tuning in. God bless you. All right. Thank you, Father. You will have the last word, 10 minutes, whenever you'd like to begin. I'm going to unmute myself. Right. Thank you, William. Thank you for your closing. Thank you for the discussion and the debate and pulling out the various things in support of your case. What I've tried to present tonight is a broader theological sense of what it is to be saved and it is union with God and it was also the broader sense of what the penalty of sin is, which is death. And so the only way out of this death is through forgiveness of sins in Christ. And we have many passages talking about suffering after death, and which we completely agree with. Now the point about Maximus, that I've just been informed by an eminent Greek scholar, is that he's talking about the moment of judgment.

Actually, in some ways at this point, it doesn't matter if it's a particular judgment or the final judgment. It is one that is at the moment of judgment, the sins are weighed for and against, and it's saying that if the balance is in the favour before, the person is saved. Even if they're not perfected, they're saved because the

balance is in the favour of them. But they are sort of chasing a little bit in that there. So it's not speaking of any sort of judgment that sends then they go to a purgatory to pay off some extra payment or suffering for their sins. The whole thing is done at the moment of their judgment and is weighed up. And this is what that fire is referring to, is that balance. It's just the moment of the judgment. It's not talking about a post-moment judgment. And so purgatory is something that I believe is post a judgment. It is when you have not judged

to go to heaven, then you go through something, an extra punishment, extra thing for sins, which you just as is after someone receives a penance or something that they must pay off over a year or three years as is given, this has continued to make up for all those penances until they're gone over. So it's very much tied up with time. But I saw nothing of any ability to answer the question about time except some vague thing that we don't know what it is. All that doesn't help the situation to explain anything at a metaphysical level. It just simply leaves us as, I believe this, and I don't know about all that, so that's what do.

I mean, I might as well talk. You can talk about some of these things with some of Mormon's doctrines example. However, I recognize that the Roman Catholic doctrine on this is much better grounded and a lot more venerable than this, and it is worthy of some intellectual position. But nevertheless, the type of response there is not sufficient to get us through anything at a theological level, which starts to actually explain the hows and whys of these things. And

this is where the doctrine has a massive problem, because it is founded about the fact of having failed to do a sufficient for penances, etc., before they die and then completing these. And yet I see no way of how you can sort of define this or define what that is or how to define the payment. As I said, Christ's payment is completely sufficient for all, to perfect all. So we cannot speak of this sort of sense. So in that way the idea of a payment or satisfaction, and we'll leave satisfaction to a bit more wider word, but the payment is that a certain amount of suffering quantifiable is given that the

soul can move to paradise. Now when I say paradise in the our debate it is a state of a moving not at the eternal judgment at the end but a judgment moving in a space now to some form of paradise. But anyway, the main point is about idea of payments. It's about whether we can quantify either temporarily or amount or how much you suffer the intensity of a suffering and how that in itself can actually cleanse a sin. And as I said, man can work forever and fail to do that through laboring, which is another way for saying suffering. So it's quite clear from the Psalms, there's no way we can quantify a time or even save its suffering or anything like that.

And any time will suffice for sins. And that the only penalty of sin is death. And it's only through forgiveness that we can be released from that and thanks to God we have and what we agree in the practice side of things we are very much in agreement so if we put aside the need to have been defined the purgatory in any way but just agree that we pray for the dead and that we offer arms etc for them we make memorials for them and these prayers are beneficial and we do even agree that that in some cases that the souls can benefit

not only with consolation, but even perhaps salvation in the last judgment through the love of those with them, through listening to the prayers of a righteous. God wants to hear the prayers of a righteous, and even in the perfection of God, they're not suitable. They'll share love of the righteous to hold them and bring them into communion. Because we're not only in communion with God, we're in communion with each other. And so God, the scene, the desire of the saints to be in communion with this person, to live with this person, despite the sins which are those which sort of hinder this union, despite these things, that he will answer the prayers in an affirmative and bring this person into the communion of saints.

So this is a great hope we have and we continue to pray. Well we are saying that this is not affected by some automatic rite when everyone passes away in a state of not quite complete repentance. So they go through a specific time and a quantifiable amount of suffering and then automatically transferred to paradise. No, we believe that at the time of death that judgment is made. The things are balanced and if they go to paradise, they weigh in their favor, they go straight to paradise. If it weighs against them, they go to hell. Not the final hell, which is in the age to come when we are resurrected in their favor, they go straight to paradise. If it weighs against them, they go to hell. Not the final hell, which is in the age

to come when we are resurrected in the body. And the other thing that was an important point that I was making about the body is that all satisfaction or penalties or something must be done in both soul and body. So once a person is passed away from the body, there is no ability for a satisfaction to work. It has or repentance to work or repayments to work. It has to be while the person is in the body. All that can be there is that the saints and their petitions and the God listening to them,

their desires, their wishes for the person that parted, that he grants forgiveness despite their sins. And all the sins immediately have already been paid by Christ. The question is, what's in their heart? Are they willing to do that? And this is why where we do agree, again, that these people who are in this place are not ones who have come cut off from the church, are not ones that have denied the faith, they're not ones that are

unbaptized, we put these other things, these other aspects that are required for union with God, and we even accept that there are people that have some form of repentance, but not complete repentance. And so in that way we are very close, but the key thing is that we deny any sense of that there is a punishment, there's a quantifiable temporal amount, sufficiency, extremity or something which is somehow beyond just the very second of judgment, the moment of judgment that leaves someone in a state of suffering for x amount of time before they move to paradise. To us that judgment and that cleansing and

everything like that is at the moment of judgment and then people move either to the temporary state of paradise or the temporary state of Hades until the final resurrection when everything is completed in the body as our final state. So yeah, while we are very close in these things, this is one of the areas which is of greatest difficulty between us, there are nuances and I think the nuances are important in the sense of what does it mean to be saved? What does it mean to have sins forgiven? What are our sins? What is it? What is the way of judgment? What's it all about? There are some interesting things about what are we talking about in this.

And I think this doctrine is one of those that start to show that there's not quite the unity of mind which we'd like about some more fundamental questions about what salvation is. And even the idea that someone can go to bliss immediately in this moment of death, is a perfection of their state is not scriptural in the sense that, as I said,

we all together in the resurrection of the body and only in that state are perfected because it's a deeper union of Christ in body and soul. And thank you again for the opportunity to have this discussion. Great. Thank you very much, Father. Thank you very much, William. A massive thanks to everybody who is watching. Please let us know what you thought below and please try to be charitable. Also, just a reminder before we wrap up that this Saturday, I'll be interviewing Dr. Peter Kreeft in studio. And one of my plans is to show him at least 20 inappropriate funny

hilarious memes. So come by for that one. God bless. See ya. Thanks guys.