A Catholic's UNDERSTANDING of Purgatory ... straight up ...

[AHJE]

The way Purgatory has been explained to me is that the work of Christ was only sufficient to cancel the spiritual, eternal consequences of sin, i.e. Hell, but that it was not sufficient to cancel the temporal, earthly consequences of sin. Purgatory is therefore necessary to remove the remaining temporal consequences of sin before one is perfect and allowed to enter Heaven.

Is this view correct according to RCC teaching?

Not exactly, Tangible, ... there are a couple of misrepresentations in the way that you have understood in your mind the Dogma of Purgatory.

(1) The salvific work of Christ is all sufficient to save us. And it was fully applied to us in Holy Baptism. All Eternal AND Temporal sins are remitted by the Sacrament of Holy Baptism by which we are cleansed from sin and born again to the New Life of Sanctifying Grace.

(2) If one sins unto death after Holy Baptism, God treats us not as bastards but as children (born again by the grace of adoption). This means that He disciplines us as Hebrews 12:5-11 clearly states. Discipline involves PAIN, according to the Word of God. And this is why I associated Temporal Punishments due to forgiven sin with the Fatherly Discipline of God.

God forgave David his sins but still ... David's son died and the sword did not depart from his household.

If so, please address the following concerns.

1. I will grant that we still suffer temporal consequences of sin while we are still living on earth, but why would temporal consequences follow us into life after earthly death?

Because if they are not fully satisfied for on earth the Justice of God remains Infinitely Just. And so does His Infinite Mercy which has created the possibility of being Purged before entering into the Kingdom.

2. Lutheran theology sees sin as bound to our flesh, as taught by Paul in Romans. Why would our fleshly sins not die with our sinful flesh?

In Sacred Writing the word "Flesh" is applied in various ways. One is the physical, the other is the moral which concerns various acts of sin or "works of the flesh".

3. Lutheran theology sees the Sacrament of the Altar, received in the body, as sanctification of the body. Does RCC Eucharistic theology have a similar position - and if so, why do we need further purifying after physical death?

Jesus in the Eucharist forgives any VENIAL sins we have committed by the reception of Holy Communion. (Obviously this Sacrament is not ordered for those who have committed Mortal sins for these must first be reconciled to God through the Sacrament of Penance in order to receive Holy Communion in a Sacramental way ... otherwise it would be a sacrilegious communion). But temporal punishments may remain. But also it must be said that one Holy Communion RIGHTLY RECEIVED is SUFFICIENT to make one a Saint ... it all depends on the persons TOTAL SELF GIVING and SURRENDER to the Lord in Charity. So it is possible that your temporal punishments may be remitted fully by ONE Holy Communion very well made.

4. What is the theological justification for the teaching that the work of Christ is insufficient to cover the all the consequences of sin, both eternal and temporal?

Jesus channels His grace in a main way through the Sacraments. And these Sacraments are ordered in a specific way. Baptism is ordered a certain way and it is an unrepeatable Sacrament. The Sacrament of Penance is not the same as Baptism as it flows automatically and logically from the uniqueness of Holy Baptism.

5. From an escatological standpoint, I've heard references to people spending hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years in Purgatory. Does this conflict with the teaching that on the last day, all humanity will be judged by Christ, the lost consigned to Hell and the saved to enter eternal life with Christ in the New Earth? What about the people who are still in Purgatory, will they have to continue to serve out their sentence for another 100K years (or whatever is left) or will they at that point be completely forgiven and perfected?

This is a good question that you raise and I have often pondered it. But I believe that the tribulation will be so severe that the People of God on earth will be perfectly ready and disposed for that transformation that will take place as St. Paul states in a twinkling of an eye in the Biblical and Catholic view of the Rapture. (which is not the disappearing act of the Holy Ones as recent "evangelical" communities have taught). Those who are in Purgatory will be resurrected as well.

In Addition, we also have Divine Mercy Sunday which comes after Easter Sunday ... in which Christ has attached a full remission of all sins Eternal and Temporal to Holy Communion on that Awesome Sunday in which we Glorify the greatest attribute of God, ... His Unfathomable Divine Mercy. This is a special grace given to the Church in these very last days in preparation for Judgment Day. Here is the Image connected with this Day:

Thank you!

You're welcome.

God bless you, Tangible.

 

[steve_bakr]

I understand the problem. I have copied my first post for you here and hope that you can get all of it on your phone. If not, I will delete the text of the paragraph.

There are some pertinent sections from Spe Salvi. Because they are lengthy, I am dividing my post into sections with each addressing a particular paragraph in numerical order from 44 through 48. I have highlighted particular portions in blue.

44. To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love. God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship. Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened. Here I would like to quote a passage from Plato which expresses a premonition of just judgement that in many respects remains true and salutary for Christians too. Albeit using mythological images, he expresses the truth with an unambiguous clarity, saying that in the end souls will stand naked before the judge. It no longer matters what they once were in history, but only what they are in truth: “Often, when it is the king or some other monarch or potentate that he (the judge) has to deal with, he finds that there is no soundness in the soul whatever; he finds it scourged and scarred by the various acts of perjury and wrong-doing ...; it is twisted and warped by lies and vanity, and nothing is straight because truth has had no part in its development. Power, luxury, pride, and debauchery have left it so full of disproportion and ugliness that when he has inspected it (he) sends it straight to prison, where on its arrival it will undergo the appropriate punishment ... Sometimes, though, the eye of the judge lights on a different soul which has lived in purity and truth ... then he is struck with admiration and sends him to the isles of the blessed”. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

Please note that the narrative about Lazarus and the rich man is described as being a parable - a distinction which neither Jesus nor the gospel writers make. The narrative is not presented in typical parabolic form and I submit that it was not a parable.

Note also, that the narrative is given a historicist spin by alleging that Jesus actually meant that this was describing an intermediate existence and not a permanent state - even though the narrative itself does not do so in any such form. One must read this into the narrative in order to reach this conclusion.

In actual fact, the narrative states explicitly that the rich man was in a torment of fire from which he could never escape nor from which he could ever hope for any relief - not even a drop of water from Lazarus.

Unfortunately, the ForumRunner does not replicate highlites, either, but I did get all of the text.

I think that your points are worth noting. I do tend to accept it as a parable, though, but this does not detract from the truth it portrays.

I accept the observation that the narrative does not specify an intermediate state, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I tend to accept the view that the narrative portrays hell, but we also must understand that the ressurection and final judgement has not yet happened, so that in itself leaves the possibility open that there is some intermediate state prior to the final judgement.

I think your observations are well considered, though.

 

[AHJE]

I have a question for all Catholics who approach this thread: ... Do you give a total AMEN to the OP?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Unfortunately, the ForumRunner does not replicate highlites, either, but I did get all of the text.

I think that your points are worth noting. I do tend to accept it as a parable, though, but this does not detract from the truth it portrays.

I accept the observation that the narrative does not specify an intermediate state, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I tend to accept the view that the narrative portrays hell, but we also must understand that the ressurection and final judgement has not yet happened, so that in itself leaves the possibility open that there is some intermediate state prior to the final judgement.

I think your observations are well considered, though.

I agree that there is an intermediate state called hell before the final judgement when the lost are cast into the Lake of Fire which burns forever. I have no difficulty understanding that the rich man was in hell and not in the Lake of Fire. However, as we both agree there is nothing in the narrative specifying an intermediate state resembling Purgatory. Thus, this text is meaningless in terms of supporting this doctrine. One might say that because Psalm 23 does not discuss reincarnation it does not mean that reincarnation does not exist.

 

[steve_bakr]

I agree that there is an intermediate state called hell before the final judgement when the lost are cast into the Lake of Fire which burns forever. I have no difficulty understanding that the rich man was in hell and not in the Lake of Fire. However, as we both agree there is nothing in the narrative specifying an intermediate state resembling Purgatory. Thus, this text is meaningless in terms of supporting this doctrine. One might say that because Psalm 23 does not discuss reincarnation it does not mean that reincarnation does not exist.

I understand what you are saying, although as Catholics we believe there to be an intermediate state after death, in which purification occurs.

I think of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as a parable. The point of it, I believe, is for the rich to give to the poor, and the dangers of being miserly.

 

[steve_bakr]

I have a question for all Catholics who approach this thread: ... Do you give a total AMEN to the OP?

I would prefer the Short Version, but it seems to be in accordance with Catholic teaching, almost Thomist in character. But I would be cautious about bombarding non-Catholics with such a wall of text.

 

[AHJE]

I would prefer the Short Version, but it seems to be in accordance with Catholic teaching, almost Thomist in character. But I would be cautious about bombarding non-Catholics with such a wall of text.

Hi steve_bakr,

Peace be with you!

In reality it was not my intention to bombard anyone. The purpose behind this thread is simply to give a coherent view of what Catholics really believe about Purgatory in order to give a concise and clear view to those who often argue against the wrong-and-misrepresented-Purgatory (which I like to call "Purfagory").

"Purfagory" really doesn't exist but I use this name to show that the real and true Purgatory ought to be distinguished from misrepresentations of it.

God bless you brother.

 

[steve_bakr]

Hi steve_bakr,

Peace be with you!

In reality it was not my intention to bombard anyone. The purpose behind this thread is simply to give a coherent view of what Catholics really believe about Purgatory in order to give a concise and clear view to those who often argue against the wrong-and-misrepresented-Purgatory (which I like to call "Purfagory").

"Purfagory" really doesn't exist but I use this name to show that the real and true Purgatory ought to be distinguished from misrepresentations of it.

God bless you brother.

Thanks. Well, it can't be said that you didn't treat the subject comprehensively. If someone reads the OP carefully, they ought to come away with a lot of Catholic teaching.

God bless you as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I understand what you are saying, although as Catholics we believe there to be an intermediate state after death, in which purification occurs.

I think of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as a parable. The point of it, I believe, is for the rich to give to the poor, and the dangers of being miserly.

I agree with you about the meaning of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Do you agree with me that it does not teach (pro or con) anything concerning Purgatory?

 

[steve_bakr]

I agree with you about the meaning of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Do you agree with me that it does not teach (pro or con) anything concerning Purgatory?

I don't want to disagree with the point made in the Encyclical, but I agree that teaching Purgatory is not the theme or purpose of the story.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't want to disagree with the point made in the Encyclical, but I agree that teaching Purgatory is not the theme or purpose of the story.

I think that's fair enough. As a Catholic you should not disagree with the teaching of your Church and I appreciate the fact that you see my point.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Shall we continue with Paragraph 45? Here is what I posted previously -

Paragraph 45 from Spe Salvi is as follows:


45. This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.


Please note that this paragraph glosses over "the complex historical paths of this development". These are not only complex, but, IMO, are quite tortured with the result being that the Catholic Church is unique in its development of this doctrine, standing quite apart from all other branches of Christianity. To accomplish this task the Catholic Church has had to read into this narrative an immense amount of doctrine neither explicitly or implicitly contained in the passage.

 

[ebia]

To accomplish this task the Catholic Church has had to read into this narrative an immense amount of doctrine neither explicitly or implicitly contained in the passage.

To accomplish which task exactly?

 

[bbbbbbb]

To accomplish which task exactly?

The task of providing a historical and scriptural basis for the doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[Albion]

The task of providing a historical and scriptural basis for the doctrine of Purgatory.

Thank you. It's been so long since the question was asked (and ignored by the advocates of Purgatory) that some seem to have forgotten it was asked.

 

[steve_bakr]

Shall we continue with Paragraph 45? Here is what I posted previously -

Paragraph 45 from Spe Salvi is as follows:

45. This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive--our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours--people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.

Please note that this paragraph glosses over "the complex historical paths of this development". These are not only complex, but, IMO, are quite tortured with the result being that the Catholic Church is unique in its development of this doctrine, standing quite apart from all other branches of Christianity. To accomplish this task the Catholic Church has had to read into this narrative an immense amount of doctrine neither explicitly or implicitly contained in the passage.

I see that the Encyclical picks up by referring to the narrative again, which we already talked about.

Purgatory may be unique to Catholicism, but to me it makes a certain amount of sense, as souls are at different levels of development here on Earth. Some may need purification before entering the state of the beautific vision.

This may also speak to the fact that Catholics view salvation in large part as a process rather than a specific moment in time.

 

[Albion]

Purgatory may be unique to Catholicism, but to me it makes a certain amount of sense, as souls are at different levels of development here on Earth. Some may need purification before entering the state of the beautific vision.

And Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to have done that as the Scriptures say it did?

 

[ebia]

The task of providing a historical and scriptural basis for the doctrine of Purgatory.

I'd still have to ask which doctrine of purgatory?

The version in Spe Salvi, at one end of the spectrum, or the extremes that have been said sometimes in past at the other, or where in between.

 

[ebia]

And Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to have done that as the Scriptures say it did?

That question assumes that purgatory is not part of the out working of that sacrifice.

 

[steve_bakr]

And Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to have done that as the Scriptures say it did?

It isn't a matter of Christ's sufficiency, but the lack of sufficiency in ourselves.