Purgatory!

[Erose]

The part in bold is incorrect.

CCC 1475 says "...who are expiating their sins in purgatory..."

Certainly. One of Purgatory's alleged functions is for the person to atone, through suffering, for their unforgiven Venial sins.

I think that the problem South Bound is having is he fails to understand that expiation doesn't always include work by the one who is expiating. We can while on earth expiate for our sins through meritorious works, such as alms giving, prayer, fasting, etc.; and through the trials and tribulations we encounter in life if endured patiently and tied through prayer to Christ's sufferings; and through the punishments that come our way due to our sins. After our death only through punishing purging are our sins expiated.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The council of Trent decrees the following concerning Purgatory:

DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service). ​

It is worth noting that the Catechism of the Council of Trent contains no specific teaching about purgatory. Perhaps the strictures contains in the decree from that council (quoted above) explains the omission.

What does the CCC say about Purgatory? Well, it has two sections that deal briefly with the doctrine but it makes no mention of unforgiven venial sins. The two sections are quoted below.

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.​

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honoured the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. 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.​

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”​

The bold text in 1473 indicates that forgiveness of sins is linked to remission of the eternal punishment of sin while temporal punishments are expiated through works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance and if such works have not put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man” then final purification in the state of purgatory is necessary. There is no indication of unforgiven sins being forgiven in purgatory in what Trent and the CCC teach on this matter. So despite the ambiguous wording of Cardinal Gibbon's statement I have yet to see either a dogmatic declaration or official church teaching that declares that venial sins are forgiven in purgatory rather than that the temporal punishments of sins are expiated therein.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a passage in scripture that implies that sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Jesus said,

Matthew 12:31-32 KJV
(31) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.​

But it is also possible to read the words in bold as emphasis on the impossibility of forgiveness for the sin discussion in v31 rather than as conformation that sins may be forgiven in the "world to come".

St. Augustine says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgement. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words.

So it seems that a number of the saints have taught that sins can be forgiven in the world to come by which they mean in purgatory. Because of their testimony I withdrawn my correction of Albion's remark. I do think it is worth pointing out that the teaching of the Catholic Church in her dogmas and doctrines may not be what Albion suggested even though some of the saints appear to teach it and a number today teach the same.

In light of my previous post the forgiveness of venial sins in purgatory seems to imply that unforgiven venial sins have no eternal punishment attached to them.

 

[South Bound]

I think that the problem South Bound is having is he fails to understand that expiation doesn't always include work by the one who is expiating.

"...who are expiating their sins in Purgatory..."

The text tells you that they are expiating their own sins.

After our death only through punishing purging are our sins expiated.

And does this take place in Purgatory?

Why are you punished for your sins, when Christ was already punished for your sins (er, for the sake of this conversation)?

Albion's statement is correct. Purgatory is for those who have died with unforgiving Venial sins, and if any temporal punishment due to sin is still required.

So then, you don't believe the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin?

There is a passage in scripture that implies that sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Jesus said,

Matthew 12:31-32 KJV
(31) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.​

Actually, it says that sin will not be forgiven in the world to come.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a passage in scripture that implies that sins can be forgiven in the age to come. Jesus said,

Matthew 12:31-32 KJV
(31) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.​

But it is also possible to read the words in bold as emphasis on the impossibility of forgiveness for the sin discussion in v31 rather than as conformation that sins may be forgiven in the "world to come".

St. Augustine says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgement. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words.

So it seems that a number of the saints have taught that sins can be forgiven in the world to come by which they mean in purgatory. Because of their testimony I withdrawn my correction of Albion's remark. I do think it is worth pointing out that the teaching of the Catholic Church in her dogmas and doctrines may not be what Albion suggested even though some of the saints appear to teach it and a number today teach the same.

In light of my previous post the forgiveness of venial sins in purgatory seems to imply that unforgiven venial sins have no eternal punishment attached to them.

Actually, it says that sin will not be forgiven in the world to come.

That's only half of what it says. The full quote is "it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." but that leaves one wondering if even a repentant sinner who has sinned in this way - by blaspheming the Holy Spirit - is simply utterly lost and unforgivable, do you think that they are?

 

[Erose]

"...who are expiating their sins in Purgatory..."

The text tells you that they are expiating their own sins.

You are adding the word 'own' to imply that they are by themselves atoning for their sins. This word 'own' is not in the sources you have quoted now is it.

I cannot make this any clearer, I understand that you feel the need to continue with this poor understanding of semantics, because you have built your whole argument around it.

And does this take place in Purgatory?

Why are you punished for your sins, when Christ was already punished for your sins (er, for the sake of this conversation)?

Yes it happens in purgatory. Why? Because no matter how much some want to eliminate the fact that God is Just as well as merciful; the simple fact is that we worship a Just God.

Jesus' method of atonement was for two purposes to meet God justice and was an act of His mercy. All sin merits eternal damnation, no matter how small. Christ's atonement met God's justice by His sacrifice, and God's mercy comes from the fact that it was God who became man to die in our place. Due to the Son's actions, we are redemned from what we deserve and can now through faith be saved by Christ's death and resurrection. The reason why the Son must be the sacrifice, was that we could not possibly redeem ourselves. It required a much greater sacrifice than what we fallen human beings could possibly give. It required an infinitely great sacrifice to meet God's justice. Thus the crucifixion of God Himself. But how do we tie ourselves to that Sacrifice? Christ gave us a sacrament that accomplishes this which is baptism, as St. Paul says. So through baptism we are justified through Christ's death and resurrection, and are made righteous as Adam and Eve were righteous before the fall.

The problem occurs after baptism. If we live for any period of time after our baptism, we are going to commit sin. When we commit sin, we can be forgiven, and made righteous once more, but it requires three things for this to occur: repentance, confession, and restitution. The first two I would assume is straight forward, but it is the last one that you probably are hung up on.

Sin has consequences, we should be able to agree upon this. When we commit an act contrary to the divine law there are people who are injured, and there consequences to those actions, and there must be restitution. God know humanity far better than we know ourselves, and we understand that mercy usually requires justice as well.

For example when my kids were little, they would do things that were against the rules of the household. When I found out I immediately forgave them, but I would also punish them. Why? Was I being unmerciful because I punished them? No I do not think so. Rather if I did not teach them that there were consequences to their actions, how would they learn what the right way was? Can you imagine if there were no need for restitution when we committed trasspasses against God? What kind of Christian would that make? Well I would imagine the type of Christian you would get was a spoiled one who has no desire to make themselves in Christ's image, just like a child that isn't punished appropriately for their actions becomes spoiled and unruly.

Purgatory exists because of God's mercy and His justice. It is a simple fact that nothing or no one impure can survive the Presence of God. It just isn't possible. Thus purgatory is a mercy in that it purifies the individual so that they can enter into the Divine Presence and see the Beatific Vision. It is an act of justice in that the individual makes restitution of the sinful acts that they committed on earth and were not able to make full restitution for.

So then, you don't believe the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin?

Oh I believe it.

Actually, it says that sin will not be forgiven in the world to come.

actually in that passage it is speaking of a specific sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[SMA12]

Yes it happens in purgatory. Why? Because no matter how much some want to eliminate the fact that God is Just as well as merciful; the simple fact is that we worship a Just God.

Very nicely put, Erose.

 

[Albion]

"...who are expiating their sins in Purgatory..."

The text tells you that they are expiating their own sins.

Of course. However, it looks as though Erose and his friends are attempting to make a distinction between "working off" a debt and merely being punished for wrongdoing--and that is an unwarranted distinction. The fact is that the reason for a soul to BE in Purgatory is because God's justice supposedly demands it.

So then, you don't believe the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin?

That does seem to be the $64,000 question here.

Actually, it says that sin will not be forgiven in the world to come.

Correct. You can't prove that sin might be forgiven in the next life by citing a verse that says that none will be.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

k

 

[Albion]

Purgatory pays a debt for sins ALREADY forgiven.

I am frankly surprised at how many Catholic posters don't know what this doctrine is all about. The average Catholic doesn't believe there's a chance he'll go there (although his church says he will), but I would think that those here who post comments on this issue would at least be among the minority that understands their church's teaching on the subject.

FYI:

Col 1:24

Well, citing Scripture isn't going to settle anything since if we go by Scripture, we'll conclude that there isn't any Purgatory at all.

What we are discussing here is the mythical "Purgatory" that the Roman Catholic Church created in the Middle Ages...and how that church--which, after all, has the right to define it since she invented it--says it operates.

FYI: Purgatory is supposed to be for two sin-related issues. 1) unforgiven Venial sins, and 2) forgiven Mortal sins.

 

[Erose]

Of course. However, it looks as though Erose and his friends are attempting to make a distinction between "working off" a debt and merely being punished for wrongdoing--and that is an unwarranted distinction. The fact is that the reason for a soul to BE in Purgatory is because God's justice supposedly demands it.

I am not sure why you would think that this is an unwarranted distinction Albion. If one was able to "work off" their debt in purgatory, then that would mean that he/she can perform meritorious acts after their death. The teaching is very explicit that one cannot perform meritorious acts for oneself after their death. So yes for Catholics this is a warranted distinction.

Correct. You can't prove that sin might be forgiven in the next life by citing a verse that says that none will be.

The verse didn't say none will be, but rather a specific sin will not be. There is a distinction there that needs to be made. Not every sin committed is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

I am not sure why you would think that this is an unwarranted distinction Albion. If one was able to "work off" their debt in purgatory, then that would mean that he/she can perform meritorious acts after their death.

Actually, I agree. But that doesn't make the Purgatory any less a "place" where people are punished for their sins. The point I was making is not that you can't make this distinction, but that it doesn't really accomplish what you want by doing so.

The verse didn't say none will be, but rather a specific sin will not be.

I agree. But again, the fact that it is said that this (or any sin) will NOT be forgiven in the afterlife can in no way be evidence that any sins ARE forgiven in the afterlife.

 

[Erose]

I am frankly surprised at how many Catholic posters don't know what this doctrine is all about. The average Catholic doesn't believe there's a chance he'll go there (although his church says he will), but I would think that those here who post comments on this issue would at least be among the minority that understands their church's teaching on the subject.

I think it is safe to say that among the Christian community, theological ignorance is on the rise. Catholics are not alone in this matter. It is a sad state of affairs we are in that folks just don't take their religion as serious as they do things such as tv and sports.

Well, citing Scripture isn't going to settle anything since if we go by Scripture, we'll conclude that there isn't any Purgatory at all.

There is enough evidence to point to it. More evidence in Scripture for purgatory than the man-made belief of Sola Scriptura.

What we are discussing here is the mythical "Purgatory" that the Roman Catholic Church created in the Middle Ages...and how that church--which, after all, has the right to define it since she invented it--says it operates.

You have been already corrected on this false understanding on your part. Purgatory has been around much longer than the middle ages as attested to its discussion by the Church Fathers. Tertullian and Origen being some of the earliest, and Augustine also spoke of it in more than a few passages.

So it just didn't pop up out of midair, but is based upon the long and ancient practice of praying for the dead, which we inherited from our Jewish history.

 

[Erose]

Actually, I agree. But that doesn't make the Purgatory any less a "place" where people are punished for their sins. The point I was making is not that you can't make this distinction, but that it doesn't really accomplish what you want by doing so.

Ok

I agree. But again, the fact that it is said that this (or any sin) will NOT be forgiven in the afterlife can in no way be evidence that any sins ARE forgiven in the afterlife.

But then the question has to be asked, why did Jesus add the part in question? If it isn't possible for some sins to be forgiven in the world to come then why was it even mentioned?

That being said, I can understand how one who doesn't already have the concept of purgatory can reject this understanding. So I personally don't use this passage as a proof text normally for it can swing both ways, IMO. It makes sense to me how I understand it due to me already have an understanding of the doctrine of purgatory. But for one who doesn't have that understanding, it wouldn't be a verse that is very convincing.

 

[Albion]

I think it is safe to say that among the Christian community, theological ignorance is on the rise. Catholics are not alone in this matter. It is a sad state of affairs we are in that folks just don't take their religion as serious as they do things such as tv and sports.

That's true, and we may say that some of it owes to the number and kinds of distractions, but I also think that we live in a time when individual judgment is so much emphasized that people are at ease belonging to churches that teach certain doctrines but which they exempt themselves from with no embarrassment.

There is enough evidence to point to it.

Not really. There is next to none...and that's putting it charitably.

You have been already corrected on this false understanding on your part.

By someone who doesn't understands it himself?

So it just didn't pop up out of midair, but is based upon the long and ancient practice of praying for the dead

Praying for the dead has about as much to do with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory as water does with popsicles. Now, to be fair, if you want to discuss praying for the dead (and you intend to advocate a conversion to Judaism to me), I'll be willing to participate.

Or if you want to say that there is some evidence that there may be some sort of transitional state in the afterlife...but if you want us to believe that Purgatory itself, as taught by the RCC, has a scriptural foundation, well, that's just a non-starter it's so far-fetched. I'd recommend that you return to using Tradition as your basis, if you want to continue in that, because Scripture is going to leave you wanting.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well, at least the Erose vs. Albion discussion is getting interesting.

 

[Albion]

Well, at least the Erose vs. Albion discussion is getting interesting.

Hmmm. I was just thinking to myself, "This isn't going anywhere." What parts of it did you think merited further discussion?

But then the question has to be asked, why did Jesus add the part in question? If it isn't possible for some sins to be forgiven in the world to come then why was it even mentioned?

Most likely, it's because he'd been asked about it or knew that some Jews thought along those lines. We know that they held a variety of ideas about the afterlife, ones that were simply speculation. Most of what we think about the afterlife comes from the New Testament, you know. Their concepts were much less developed. For instance, you want to say that the Jews prayed for the dead, and while some did, that doesn't mean that they had any Purgatory in mind AND the Old Testament also says that the dead know nothing--which contradicts the RC idea of Purgatory since you can't suffer if you aren't conscious.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hmmm. I was just thinking to myself, "This isn't going anywhere." What parts of it did you think merited further discussion?

I just like that there's an actual textual discussion about Jesus' sayings and disputes about sins forgiven or not post mortum (and I like your most recent response about the variety of afterlife speculation, since that was absolutely an important feature of Second Temple Judaism)

For my part, I'm probably much more sympathetic to some idea of post mortum purging of sin and the rectification of the soul than most Lutherans or Protestants, although it looks nothing like the developed Catholic idea of purgatory as it is connected to the sacrament of reconciliation and the Thomistic/Tridentine theology of meritum de condigno.

I believe, like Aquinas and Bonaventura and Luther and Melanchthon, that the soul is twisted because of a habitus of sin derived from the flesh and that when the flesh is put off, the source of that sinful habitus is left on this earth; but does the soul then automatically "untwist" when "liberated" from the flesh like a rubber band snapping back into place, or that it needs to be untwisted over some period of "time"? Add that question to the question of whether there is a intermediate state between death and resurrection at all, and it seems to me that the best argument against soul sleep relies on an argument for some sort of purging period for the soul between death and resurrection. In that sense there is no difference between heaven and purgatory; there's just a single worshiping community of saints moving forward on the path toward final salvation, just like here on earth, except there is no longer any backsliding because there are no longer any fleshly impulses.

But like Luther my ideas aren't well thought out (the above is the true extent of it) and I don't think they're all that important either way. As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is only a problem inasmuch as it is connected to the Catholic doctrines of penance and condign merit. And on that question- the question of justification- I think you and I are firmly agreed.

 

[Albion]

I just like that there's an actual textual discussion about Jesus' sayings and disputes about sins forgiven or not post mortum (and I like your most recent response about the variety of afterlife speculation, since that was absolutely an important feature of Second Temple Judaism)

For my part, I'm probably much more sympathetic to some idea of post mortum purging of sin and the rectification of the soul than most Lutherans or Protestants, although it looks nothing like the developed Catholic idea of purgatory as it is connected to the sacrament of reconciliation and the Thomistic/Tridentine theology of meritum de condigno.

And that is a big issue to me.

Catholics are fond of arguing that if it bears ANY resemblance whatsoever to Purgatory...then it's Purgatory--the Purgatory that the RCC created in the Middle Ages and taught until our own lifetimes.

As the expression goes, 'close' counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but that's all. No educated person should say that X has a few of the characteristics of Y, so they are the same thing.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

And that is a big issue to me.

Catholics are fond of arguing that if it bears ANY resemblance whatsoever to Purgatory...then it's Purgatory--the Purgatory that the RCC created in the Middle Ages and taught until our own lifetimes.

As the expression goes, 'close' counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but that's all. No educated person should say that X has a few of the characteristics of Y, so they are the same thing.

The doctrine of purgatory is the same now as it was in the middle ages. Many superstitions have arisen around this doctrine but that doesn't change the doctrine.