Yes Purgatory: A Response to Fr. Josiah Trenham

Recently the popular Eastern Orthodox (EO) priest and apologist Fr. Josiah Trenham released a video entitled, “No Purgatory,” wherein he attempts to dispute the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Unfortunately, throughout this video Trenham betrays an ignorance of the patristic heritage of the first millennium Church, and makes arguments against the Catholic concept of “justice” that would, in fact, undermine the historic Christian faith. In this article, I will address Trenham’s arguments against the patristic and biblical basis for purgatory, as well as explain the problems with Mark of Ephesus’ rejection of this doctrine at the Council of Florence. With that brief introduction, let us begin.

Fr. Trenham starts off his critique of purgatory by asserting that this doctrine “was not defined in any sort of serious way by the Latins until after the Great Schism,” and this is “very important to note” because, he argues, EO Christians should be “skeptical” of  “those things which cannot be rooted clearly in the unbroken tradition of the Church.” There are few things to point out about this rhetoric. First, while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church did not solemnly define the doctrine of purgatory until the Decree of Union at the Council of Florence in the 15th century (which was accepted by both East and West), something similar could be said of the EO. It seems that the EO did not produce a dogmatic definition on the “intermediate state” of the soul until the 17th century at the Synods of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672). While it is true that these Synods were likely drawing on the theology of Mark of Ephesus’ Orations Against Purgatory, these lectures have never been given any sort of conciliar approbation that I am aware of. Thus, it seems that both Catholics and EO are stuck with their churches producing “late” decrees on this question, and so I am not sure how this point is even relevant to a discussion of purgatory’s validity.

This brings us to my second observation of Trenham’s rhetoric which is that, from the way he talks, he makes it sound like the Latins just completely invented the doctrine of purgatory in the Middle Ages, yet surely he knows this is not true. While paying lip-service to “the faith once delivered to the Saints,” Trenham never actually addresses the Saints of both East and West who did explicitly teach the Latin doctrine of purgatory, nor does he try to show (with one exception) that the Fathers rejected this doctrine. Instead, all Trenham really does in this video is point to his own medieval tradition of teachers who contested the Catholic doctrine, and just repeat their arguments within the framework of 20th century EO thought. This does not necessarily make Trenham wrong, but it should cause listeners to approach what he says with at least the same level of skepticism that he wants EO to approach Catholic teaching.

Turning now to Trenham’s actual qualms with the doctrine of purgatory itself, he makes it clear that the EO reject this teaching on three grounds: (1) they hold that there is not “a special purgatorial fire [sic] a unique fire that is not the eternal fire”; (2) that there is not “a third place other than Hades or Paradise for the souls of the departed to go to”; and (3) “the legalistic notion of making satisfaction to God,” which Trenham says is completely “bogus,” is rejected. After laying out these areas of contention, Trenham then launches into a discussion of the notorious 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 passage and attempts to explain why it does not prove the existence of purgatory, something that I will address in detail below. At the moment, however, I want to focus on these three points that Trenham identifies as the foundation of EO’s rejection of purgatory and explain why they are, in fact, “bogus.”

Naturally, in order to evaluate whether or not Fr. Trenham’s (and thus EO’s) position on purgatory is correct we must turn to the universal witness of the Church’s tradition, both East and West. As Mark of Ephesus assured the Latin delegation at the Council of Florence, “We recognize each other fraternally, we shall reverence your common fathers, we shall honor their definitions; we shall fear their threats” (Acta Graeca, 1:216-217). Just as Trenham would hopefully reprimand anyone who would dare to dismiss the universal witness of the Greek Fathers, so too should we condemn anyone who dares to dismiss the universal witness of the Latin Fathers. They must be read together. With that in mind, let us consider the patristic evidence.

Writing in the 4th century A.D., long before the schism between East and West, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote the following about the Apostle’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

For he said “but only as through fire” so that this salvation might not be without punishment, for he did not say he will be saved by fire; so that unconsumed by the fire he deserves he becomes saved having been examined through fire; but when he says “but only as through fire” he shows that he is saved in the future though he will undergo the punishments of fire (poenas ignis); so that purged by fire he becomes saved, and he is not tortured forever in eternal fire like the unbelievers.

St. Ambrose, In I Cor, 3. PL 17:211 C., qtd. in Jorgenson, James. “The Debate over the Patristic Texts on Purgatory at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30.4 (1986), p. 318.

This great Doctor explicitly teaches exactly what Fr. Trenham denounces as heresy. According to St. Ambrose, St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 reveals that the faithful departed will be “purged by fire” as a “punishment” that must be endured before they are eventually “saved in the future.” This is in order that the holy souls may “not [be] tortured forever in eternal fire like the unbelievers.” Clearly, Ambrose makes a distinction between the punitive temporal fire that purifies faithful souls after death, and the eternal fire that punishes wicked souls forever, precisely what EO rejects. 

Now, before any of my EO readers dismiss our holy Father’s teaching merely because he was born in the West and not the East, remember what was decreed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council: “We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith” (Second Council of Constantinople, Session I, New Advent). One cannot claim to adhere to this dogmatic teaching while completely dismissing the entire Latin patristic tradition, that simply will not do.

With this reminder, let us consider the witness of another Latin Father whose theology the Fifth Council hailed as orthodox, St. Augustine of Hippo. This holy Doctor had a lot to say about the doctrine of purgatory, for example:

Who cultivates this ground (cf. Genesis 3:17) inwardly and shall have arrived at his bread ever so much with labor, he is able to endure this labor even to the end of this life, but after this life it is not necessary that he suffer. But if perchance he shall not have cultivated his ground and shall have allowed it to be oppressed with thorns, he has the curse of the land in all his works in this life and after his life he shall have either the fire of purgation (ignem purgationis) or eternal punishment.

St. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos: 2, 20, 30. PL 34:212., qtd. in Jorgenson, p. 318.

Granted, this text is not a robust articulation of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, however, it demonstrates that, like his teacher St. Ambrose, St. Augustine also taught exactly what Trenham rejects as heretical. According to this Saint, after death there are two different kinds of fire: the fire that purifies and the fire that eternally punishes. In his commentary on Psalm 38, Augustine is even more explicit in his teaching about this post-mortem purgative fire:

“Neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure”; so that You may cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for those “who are to be saved, yet so as by fire.” 1 Corinthians 3:15 Why? Why, but because they “build upon the foundation, wood, stubble, and hay. Now they should build on it, gold, silver, and precious stones”; 1 Corinthians 3:12 and should have nothing to fear from either fire: not only that which is to consume the ungodly for ever, but also that which is to purge those who are to escape through the fire. For it is said, “he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” And because it is said, “he shall be saved,” that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever.

St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 38, 2, New Advent.

Notice the point that St. Augustine is making here. He desires to be purified from sin in this life so that he does not have to experience “the cleansing fire” of the next life. This is already operating within the very judicial framework that Trenham called “bogus,” since our holy Father is teaching that sins must either be cleansed in this life through self-mortification, or in the next through fiery purgation. Augustine further warns that we should not think lightly of the fires of purgatory just because they are temporary, for “that fire” will still “be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever.” This warning reminds us of the disposition that Mark of Ephesus taught his EO brethren to have towards the Latin Fathers: “we shall fear their threats.” I sure hope that Fr. Trenham takes heed. 

There are many more texts from St. Augustine that I could wield in favor of purgatory, however, this should suffice for now. The next Father I will quote from extensively, and if you, like Fr. Trenham, have fully bought into the 20th century EO conception of divine justice, you better buckle up for what St. Caesarius of Arles (470-542 A.D.) taught about purgatory:

Therefore, they [the faithful departed] may continuously be redeemed by constant prayer, frequent fasting, more abundant almsgiving, and the forgiveness of those who sin against us. Otherwise, perhaps when they are collected and form a great heap, they may bury us. Whatever remains of these sins and is not redeemed by us will have to be purged in that fire of which the Apostle said: ‘It is to be revealed in fire, and if his work burns he will lose his reward.’ As long as we live in this world, we ourselves exhaust ourselves in penance, or at least with the will and permission of God, we are afflicted with many tribulations because of those sins. If we are further grateful to God, we are set free. This happens as often as a husband or wife or child dies, or if our substance, which we love more than is necessary, is taken away—although we should love Christ more than that same possession, and if need be, should prefer to lose our substance rather than to deny Christ. Still, as I already said, because we love it more than we should, we cannot lose it either in life or in death without great sorrow. And still, if like good children, we give thanks to God who like a kind father permits it to be taken away, and admit with true humility that we suffer less than we deserve, in this way the sins themselves are purged in this world. Moreover, that fire of purgatory will find nothing in the future life, or at least very little, to burn away. But if we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works, we will have to stay in that fire of purgatory as long as those above-mentioned slight sins are consumed like wood and hay and straw. 

Perhaps someone may say: ‘It makes no difference to me how long I will have to stay, as long as I pass on to eternal life.’ Let no one say this, dearest brethren, because that fire of purgatory will be more difficult than any punishment in this world can be seen or imagined or felt. Since it is written concerning the day of judgment: ‘One day will be as a thousand goats, and a thousand years as one day,’ how does anyone know whether he is going to pass through that fire days or months or perhaps even years? Moreover, if a man is unwilling to put even one finger into the fire, why should he not fear that it might then be necessary to be tortured both in soul and body for a considerable time? For this reason, let each one labor with all his strength to avoid serious sins, and to redeem his slight offenses by good works in such a way that either very little or nothing of them may be seen to remain for that fire to consume. If those who commit serious sins refuse to correct them during life by the healing remedy of repentance, they will not be able to come to that fire of which the Apostle says: ‘But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.’ As was already said, they are going to hear instead that hard and irrevocable sentence: ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire.’ Therefore, those who desire to be freed from that eternal punishment and from the fire of purgatory should not commit serious sins. If they have already committed them, they should perform fruitful penance, not ceasing to redeem by good works also those small and even daily offenses.

St. Caesarius. Sermon 179, Sermons, Volume 2 (81–186). Translated by Mary Magdeleine Mueller, Catholic University of America Press, 1964, pp. 452-453.

One really could not ask for a more explicit affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. According to St. Caesarius, whatever sins we do not “redeem” in this life through prayer, fasting, and good works, “will have to be purged in that fire of which the Apostle” spoke in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. Careful readers may also notice that St. Caesarius gives the exact same warning about purgatory that St Augustine did, namely, that because the “fire of purgatory will be more difficult than any punishment in this world,” its temporary duration should never be used as an excuse to fall into sins. It is also worth highlighting that Caesarius uses the imagery of days, months, and years to describe the temporal nature of purgatory, explicitly affirming that the more “good works” one “redeems” his life with, the less “time” he will have to spend in purgatory. I sure wonder what this Saint of God would think about Fr. Trenham calling his beliefs about divine justice “bogus.”

The next Father of the Church we will take a look at is one that EO Christians ought to pay careful attention to, since he is highly venerated in the East as well as the West. In the 6th century A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great posed the question of “whether there be any fire of purgatory in the next world,” to which he answered:

We must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins. Because our Saviour saith, “that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime: for when St. Paul saith, that “Christ is the foundation”: and by and by addeth: “And if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: the work of every one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any man’s work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward; if any mans work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” For although these words may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which men suffer in this world: yet if any will interpret them of the fire of Purgatory, which shall be in the next life: then must he carefully consider, that the Apostle said not that he may be saved by fire, that buildeth upon this foundation iron, brass, or lead, that is, the greater sort of sins, and therefore more hard, and consequently not remissible in that place: but wood, hay, stubble, that is, little and very light sins, which the fire doth easily consume. Yet we have here further to consider, that none can be there purged, no, not for the least sins that be, unless in his lifetime he deserved by virtuous works to find such favour in that place.

St. Gregory, Dialogues (1911) Book 4. pp. 177-258, Chapter 39.

St. Gregory is very direct: faithful Christians “must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins.” Notice that, unlike what Trenham would have you believe, this Saint is not just giving his opinion or speculating, rather he is authoritatively teaching what “must” be held by Christians. It is also important to note that St. Gregory believes purgatory to exist “before the day of judgment,” because in his video Fr. Trenham, following Mark of Ephesus, tries to insinuate that this saintly Pope was just speculating about the eternal fire of Gehenna that will exist after the Last Judgment. However, Gregory was clearly not talking about that. Instead, the Dialogist not only affirms that the fires of purgatory purify the sins of the faithful departed in the next life, but he also explicitly identifies purgatory as a “place,” another teaching that Trenham decries as heretical.

This brings us to the last Latin Doctor that we will consider, St. Bede the Venerable, whose feast day the EO celebrate on May 27th. Writing in the 7th and 8th centuries, St. Bede taught the following about the doctrine of purgatory:

But in truth there are some who were preordained to the lot of the elect on account of their good works, but on account of some evils by which they were polluted, went out from the body after death to be severely chastised and were seized by the flames of the fire of purgatory [flammis ignis purgatorii]. They are either made clean from the stains of their vices in their long ordeal up until judgement day, or, on the other hand, if they are absolved from their penalties by the petitions, almsgiving, fasting, weeping, and oblation of the saving sacrificial offering by their faithful friends, they may come earlier to the rest of the blessed. 

St. Bede, Homily for Advent, qtd. in Moreira, Isabel. Heaven’s Purge: Purgatory in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press (2010), p. 159.

Given the Latin tradition up until this point, St. Bede’s teaching here is not at all surprising. According to this saintly Doctor, some of the faithful departed are “made clean” from their sins “by the flames of the fire of purgatory,” which occurs prior to judgment day. Like the Fathers before him, Bede also teaches that the good works of the faithful on earth can be used to “absolve” souls in purgatory of their sins, something that allows them to “come earlier to the rest of the blessed.” In other words, St. Bede taught exactly what Fr. Trenham believes is a “bogus” perversion of divine justice, namely, that time in purgatory can be reduced through prayers and good works. 

Although we have only considered Latin Fathers at this point, it should nonetheless be clear that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory was by no means invented in the Middle Ages, nor was it merely the speculative opinion of one or two Saints. Instead, purgatory was universally taught across the entire Latin patristic tradition. Not only was it simply mentioned in passing by men such as Ss. Ambrose, Augustine, Caesarius, Gregory the Great, and Bede the Venerable, but it was taught authoritatively by them. This means that, long before the schism, the Latin West had already fully embraced the very doctrine of purgatory that Fr. Trenham believes is a gross distortion of the “unbroken tradition of the Church.” This truly leaves one wondering how exactly the Church’s tradition can be “unbroken” if such a grievous heresy could be embraced by so many holy and authoritative voices through the ages. At the very least, I hope seeing this gives men like Trenham a little bit more humility before they scorn the faith of the Fathers.

Moving forward, let us now address the arguments that Fr. Trenham makes against the traditional patristic exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. From what was written above it should be clear that the vast majority of the Fathers who commented on this passage read it in a “purgatorial” way, and so the burden of proof really falls on Trenham to show why we must denounce these Fathers as poor exegetes. To put this into perspective, imagine that there was a passage of Scripture that the Greek Fathers unanimously read in one way, but a single Latin Father read in a different way, and I wanted to defend the minority position against the majority. It would not necessarily be impossible, but it would certainly require an extremely powerful argument on my end in order to uproot an otherwise patristic consensus. With this in mind, let us quote the biblical passage in question and then go over Trenham’s arguments:

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

The first reason Trenham gives for why this passage cannot refer to purgatory is because the fire spoken of here “is not a purging fire, [rather] this is a fire that tests, that reveals, not that works satisfaction, not that works benefit.” This is connected with his second argument that, “it is not just sins that go through this [fire] but good works pass through it, which means that if you are going to refer to this text, evidently all people are going to have to go through this purgatorial fire which is not, in fact, the teaching of the Latins.” To be sure, these are not bad arguments from an exegetical point of view. However, as faithful students of the Church Fathers, we should pay careful attention to the precise way in which they use this text to prove purgatory. They do so by focusing on v. 15, “though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” It is true that St. Paul teaches that all Christians will have their works “tested” by fire, however, contrary to Trenham’s claim, the Apostle only says that those who “suffer loss” will be “saved through fire,” meaning that the Latin exegesis of this text does not require all people to go through the purgatorial fire, rather only those who are to be “saved” by means of this fire.

Indeed, a number of years ago there was an article written by the New Testament scholar Daniel Frayer-Griggs entitled, “Neither Proof Text nor Proverb: The Instrumental Sense of διά and the Soteriological Function of Fire in 1 Corinthians 3.15.” Frayer-Griggs points out that the Apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is a “probable allusion to Malachi 3, where fire plays a purifying and refining function,” which, coupled with “the frequent pairing of testing and refining in the Hebrew Bible [cf. Isa 48.10; Jer 9.6; Zech 13.9; Ps 66.10],” strongly tips the scales “in favor of the instrumental sense of διά [“through”] and thus in favor of the soteriological function of fire in v. 15.” This is powerful evidence against Fr. Trenham’s argument because, unlike what he claims, Scripture is perfectly fine speaking of purification by fire happening right alongside testing by fire, with some experiencing the former and others the latter. This is further supported by the Latin Doctors themselves who understood that those who build “gold, silver, [and] precious stones” on the foundation of Christ will experience the test but not the refining by fire, while those who build “wood, hay, [and] straw” will have to undergo both. 

The next argument that Trenham makes regarding 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is probably his weakest. He posits that, while the Catholic teaching is that those who are “saved as through fire” receive the benefit of being saved, the actual text of v. 15 says that those whose “work is burned up… will suffer loss.” However, the solution to this apparent contradiction is very simple: what they are losing is that which is “burned up,” i.e. their sins, a process that is implied to be painful since it occurs “through fire.” The only way for Fr. Trenham’s argument here to work would be if he interprets St. Paul’s usage of the phrase “will be saved” (σωθήσεται) in a non-soteriological way, however, that is just absurd. Every other time Paul uses this phrase in his writings (Rom 9:27, 10:13; 11:26; 1 Tim 2:15), and every single time it is used in the New Testament in the context of divine judgment (Matt 10:22; 24:13; Mk 13:13, 16:16; Jn 10:9; Acts 2:21), it only has one meaning: to receive eternal salvation. To suppose that this word has a different meaning in 1 Corinthians 3:15 solely because it is convenient for your theological presuppositions is to cease engaging in serious discussion. Thus, there is absolutely no contradiction between saying that those in purgatory “suffer loss,” yet still are “saved,” since this is exactly what St. Paul says. 

This brings us to what is probably Fr. Trenham’s strongest argument against the purgatorial reading of our text, which is that the scene described here “takes place ‘on that Day,’ on the Great Day, not at death but on that day when the Great Judgment will take place. This is not a reference to something that happens in the intermediate state, this is a reference to what happens at the end [of time].” Now, there is absolutely no doubt that when v. 13 says, “the Day will disclose it,” the Final Judgment is indeed the primary focus. So does this refute the doctrine of purgatory since we believe that it exists prior to that Day? Not at all. As Trenham should well know, in the patristic tradition of biblical interpretation, we often see that the Fathers had no problem taking passages of Scripture that are clearly about the Final Judgment, and applying them to the time of our deaths. 

For example, when Jesus says in Matthew 25:13 that we “know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of man comes,” He is clearly referring to some kind of eschatological judgment and not the time of our deaths. However, this did not stop St. John Chrysostom from interpreting this passage as Jesus “showing [us] how awful our ignorance is concerning our departure” from this life. He further warns that those who think, “At the time of my death, I shall leave money to the poor,” ought to “listen to these words, and be amended. For indeed at that time many have failed of this, having been snatched away at once” (Homily 78 on Matthew, 2). For Chrysostom, what will occur at the Final Judgment reveals what will occur at the hour of death, which is why preparing for one is necessarily preparing for the other. As such, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaking of a final purification by fire that some of the saints will have to endure reveals that these who fall asleep before that Day will have to undergo this same purification after death, exactly as the Latin Fathers taught.

Indeed, imagine the absurdity that would result if this were not the case. If the purification by fire occurred only at the end of time, and not after our deaths, then this would mean that there are some faithful who die, depart to heaven while still bearing their impurities, remain in heaven this way until the end of time, and then are only purified of their sins at the Final Judgment. Would this not contradict even the EO teaching that the faithful departed can be cleansed of their sins after death through the sacrifices of those on earth? Clearly, Fr. Trenham’s gloss on this passage results in a complete breakdown of the historic Christian faith, and therefore it must be false. 

This leaves Trenham with only one argument left, which is an appeal to the authority of St. John Chrysostom who rejected a temporal reading of the fire of 1 Corinthians 3:15 in order to combat the Origenist heresy. However, since Trenham himself completely dismisses the exegesis of this passage provided by Ss. Ambrose, Augustine, Caesarius, Gregory the Great, and Bede the Venerable, why can I not just disregard the exegesis of St. John Chrysostom? After all, Ss. Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom are all listed together as Doctors of the Church by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, so we have no intrinsic reason to exalt one over the other, especially not if that one is in the minority! I can simply point out that, due to the theological landscape of his day, which involved many people arguing for universalism, Chrysostom simply made an exegetical mistake. In order to defend his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:15, Chrysostom had to maintain that “will be saved” (σωθήσεται) refers not to eternal salvation, but rather to the eternal preservation of the damned (i.e. non-Annihilationism). However, above it was already shown why this is definitely not what Paul meant since that Greek word only ever has one meaning in the New Testament, i.e. salvation, and it never refers to mere preservation. 

Thus, in the spirit of harmonizing the Fathers, rather than just saying most of them were heretics, I would propose that if Chrysostom had encountered the Latin exegesis of St. Paul’s words, wherein they speak of temporal fire in addition to the eternal fire, he would have changed his mind. I would prefer not to go the route of Mark of Ephesus who said that he would not change his mind about 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, “even if Augustine or Gregory the Dialogist or another of your Teachers should give such an interpretation” (First homily of Mark of Ephesus on Purgatory, 6). It seems that, for Mark, it did not matter how many Fathers of the Church taught the doctrine of purgatory, he wanted to go with his preferred reading of St. Paul no matter what. But is this really how apostolic Christians are supposed to read Scripture? God forbid. 

Throughout the rest of his video, instead of turning to the Church Fathers, Trenham simply repeats the arguments Mark of Ephesus made against purgatory in the Middle Ages, most of which have already been addressed above. Ultimately, the problem with Trenham’s arguments is the same as the problem with EO arguments since the Council of Florence: they are forcing the Fathers to contradict each other even though they do not have to. For instance, Trenham affirms that, according to the Fathers, “believers who have not repented of certain sins and or have not made serious repentance, are kept in Hades for a time as in prison and confinement, but not forever, and they are cleansed by the gnawing of their conscience… by the prayers and liturgies of the Church, and the good deeds performed by the faithful.” These are all beliefs to which the Catholic Church can say yes and amen! Nothing about those in purgatory (which we have no problem saying is located in Hades) having their cleansing accelerated through their own suffering in conscience, as well as the sacrifices offered on their behalf on earth, contradicts Catholic teaching. Catholicism simply holds that, since there is also a consistent and ancient tradition that affirms the existence of a “special fire” in a “place called purgatory,” we should affirm that as well.

At the end of the day, when it comes to the difference between Catholics and EO on this issue, it really is this: Catholics embrace and try to harmonize all of the Fathers, while EO pick and choose which Fathers they like best. EO such as Fr. Trenham can pay lip-service to preserving the “ancient” and “unbroken” tradition of the first millennium, but when you start picking apart what they actually mean by this, it quickly comes crashing down. This is why I must conclude by rebuking Fr. Trenham and saying, actually, yes purgatory.