Scriptural references to Purgatory - Old and New Testament

[~Anastasia~]

In my memory, you have never offended.

I agree with your statement. We generally call this Christus Victor. I might say that Jesus died defeating evil and allowing us to be reconciled with the Father by removing the barrier, and was resurrected, defeating death.

You are Latin Rite, aren't you? Just curious?

 

[mark46]

You are Latin Rite, aren't you? Just curious?

Yes.

We have also been members of the Anglican Church since we retired 8 years ago. We lived around Boston. I taught in the Church and also in our charismatic prayer group. The crisis in the Church over the handling of the priests was really too much for so many. I have been drifting back home to the Catholic Church, and have attended both over the last few years. My wife and I have been welcomed into our Anglican Church, which is affiliated with ACNA and GAFCON (the Anglican Communion has really split almost in two).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes.

We have also been members of the Anglican Church since we retired 8 years ago. We lived around Boston. I taught in the Church and also in our charismatic prayer group. The crisis in the Church over the handling of the priests was really too much for so many. I have been drifting back home to the Catholic Church, and have attended both over the last few years. My wife and I have been welcomed into our Anglican Church, which is affiliated with ACNA and GAFCON (the Anglican Communion has really split almost in two).

Ok, thank you. I have just been curious whether your answers were meant to represent Latin Catholic theology or not, as you have surprised me just a bit a few times.

 

[Sea Horse]

One verse to rule them all

1 Corinthians 3:15

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

As stated by 1 Corinthians 3:16 , since you are born again (1 Cor 15:1-4) you have Holy Spirit in you ( Eph 1:13-14 ) and Holy Spirit can't burn in hell , so you aswell as christian can't burn in hell or purgatory or mordor or whatever you call it .

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The thing that worries me about purgatory is that it implies that Jesus' sacrifice did not remove all our sins. So we are not fully putting our faith in Him as our savior. I believe that in order for us to fully accept Jesus as our one and only savior we must have complete faith that our salvation rests completely in Him. Think about this, I don't believe in purgatory. I believe that Jesus paid for all my sins. I fully trust in Him as my savior. When I die if I am wrong I will suffer no consequences for not believing in purgatory. I would then go to purgatory. My fate would not be any different than my catholic brothers & sisters. Now lets say that I do believe in purgatory and I die then I find out there is no purgatory. I didn't fully trust in Jesus as my savior because I expected to pay for the sins that I didn't believe that Jesus paid for. That's a scary thought. I would much rather fully put my trust in Jesus as my savior and be wrong than not fully trust in Him and believe in purgatory and be wrong. Will those that didn't fully trust in Jesus still be saved?

 

[Targaryen]

The thing that worries me about purgatory is that it implies that Jesus' sacrifice did not remove all our sins. So we are not fully putting our faith in Him as our savior. I believe that in order for us to fully accept Jesus as our one and only savior we must have complete faith that our salvation rests completely in Him. Think about this, I don't believe in purgatory. I believe that Jesus paid for all my sins. I fully trust in Him as my savior. When I die if I am wrong I will suffer no consequences for not believing in purgatory. I would then go to purgatory. My fate would not be any different than my catholic brothers & sisters. Now lets say that I do believe in purgatory and I die then I find out there is no purgatory. I didn't fully trust in Jesus as my savior because I expected to pay for the sins that I didn't believe that Jesus paid for. That's a scary thought. I would much rather fully put my trust in Jesus as my savior and be wrong than not fully trust in Him and believe in purgatory and be wrong. Will those that didn't fully trust in Jesus still be saved?

I do not subscribe to the belief in purgatory nor an intermediate state myself, but if I'm not mistaken and I'm sure one of our RCC or Orthodox brothers and sisters will correct me. Purgatory is a state where if I'm not misreading theology here, is where when people die and they might be faithful but have sins on their account still they are purged of their sins in this intermediate state. Again, if I misread or do not have a ful grasp of this doctrine please correct me, but the way I've read it in recent years. Purgatory is just a place where one's sins are finally removed so one can enter the Kingdom.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I do not subscribe to the belief in purgatory nor an intermediate state myself, but if I'm not mistaken and I'm sure one of our RCC or Orthodox brothers and sisters will correct me. Purgatory is a state where if I'm not misreading theology here, is where when people die and they might be faithful but have sins on their account still they are purged of their sins in this intermediate state. Again, if I misread or do not have a ful grasp of this doctrine please correct me, but the way I've read it in recent years. Purgatory is just a place where one's sins are finally removed so one can enter the Kingdom.

I think your understanding is correct, though I should point out that Orthodox does not subscribe to purgatory either. It is a uniquely Catholic doctrine as far as I can see, and I've heard some eastern Catholics deny it, including an EC priest friend of mine, formerly Latin Rite Catholic priest.


(Orthodoxy does hold to an intermediate state, but it is not tied to purgatory. Simply when we die, firstly we are separated from our bodies and will remain so until the resurrection of all bodies at the end of the age. And secondly, the final judgement has not come. But we are more concerned with it being intermediate because we do not yet have our bodies again.)

 

[Targaryen]

(Orthodoxy does hold to an intermediate state, but it is not tied to purgatory. Simply when we die, firstly we are separated from our bodies and will remain so until the resurrection of all bodies at the end of the age. And secondly, the final judgement has not come. But we are more concerned with it being intermediate because we do not yet have our bodies again.)

Interesting...that would fit more of how I think how some in my tradition would view purgation. However, I've always held to a more "protestant" looking view that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary and our faith in Him couple with our contrition for our sins is all the factors that lead to full atonement to enter the Kingdom.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Interesting...that would fit more of how I think how some in my tradition would view purgation. However, I've always held to a more "protestant" looking view that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary and our faith in Him couple with our contrition for our sins is all the factors that lead to full atonement to enter the Kingdom.

Well we don't dogmatize anything. There are several ideas, and one of them is that the soul is purged perhaps very quickly or immediately, either by death itself or by being brought into the presence of God. I think that would be along the idea of a Protestant understanding (if they acknowledge at all that we must in fact be changed and it is not simply a legal standing we require).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well we don't dogmatize anything. There are several ideas, and one of them is that the soul is purged perhaps very quickly or immediately, either by death itself or by being brought into the presence of God. I think that would be along the idea of a Protestant understanding (if they acknowledge at all that we must in fact be changed and it is not simply a legal standing we require).

I should add that purification is simply a step in the process of spiritual development for us. Roughly along the lines of what most Protestants call "sanctification". So ideally this process should be well underway if we live some time after conversion to Christ. If we live our lives and don't enter it, we should examine ourselves if we are truly converted at all.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I do not subscribe to the belief in purgatory nor an intermediate state myself, but if I'm not mistaken and I'm sure one of our RCC or Orthodox brothers and sisters will correct me. Purgatory is a state where if I'm not misreading theology here, is where when people die and they might be faithful but have sins on their account still they are purged of their sins in this intermediate state. Again, if I misread or do not have a ful grasp of this doctrine please correct me, but the way I've read it in recent years. Purgatory is just a place where one's sins are finally removed so one can enter the Kingdom.

So far I can't find anyone that will explain how the teaching of purgatory doesn't contradict these scriptures. Every time I'm in a conversation with a catholic and I mention these verses they either never reply or change the subject to apostolic succession or sola scriptura.

“yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:22-23‬ ‭ASV‬‬

“And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:11‬ ‭ASV‬‬

“And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:17-20‬ ‭ASV‬‬

These are just a few of the many examples that show that our sins are already paid in full by Jesus' sacrifice. All of these are said in the past tense meaning this has already taken place. We are reconciled, made right with God, sanctified, justified, and these are the result in the present tense we are holy and without blemish, unreproveable before God, there is no more offering for sin, having the boldness to enter the holy place. Paul was writing to sinners and he knew this but this is what he proclaimed to those sinners. Paul didn't know if they confessed every sin or if they had been baptized and hadn't sinned afterwards. Surely he wasn't writing to people who had already gone thru purgatory. These are epistles which took a very long time to reach their destination but he is absolutely convinced that these people are completely cleansed of all sin, made right with God, and able to enter the most holy place. If someone could please explain to me how purgatory doesn't contradict these verses then I might be able to believe in it. As for now I would rather die placing all my faith in Jesus Christ as my savior than believe that His sacrifice didn't fully cleanse me of all my sins.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hello, BRN32FAN,

I will try to help a little, since you haven't gotten a Catholic to reply. But please remember that this is not something we teach, and so I welcome any correction from Catholics about what they actually believe if I get any details wrong. And I won't be arguing FOR a belief in purgatory, since we (Orthodox) do not teach it.

Really, from your post, I would have to ask you a question though. Do you consider that you are immediately sanctified and made like Christ at the moment of conversion? That could be the communication breakdown, if that's what you believe. Most Protestants see it as a sort of legal standing, "as if" they are like Christ. But do not believe that they are actually, truly sanctified at that point. Protestants can vary a lot though. Do you believe that Christians should begin to undergo a process of becoming ACTUALLY more like Christ, being changed, being sanctified, after they are converted/"saved"?

It kind of depends where you fall on that question.

The early Church, which both Catholics and Orthodox teach the same doctrines, believed that it was the normal process of the Christian walk to begin being changed, by cooperating with the grace of God, to ACTUALLY become more like Christ - not just to be seen by God through "Christ-tinted glasses" as it were. Many Protestants believe the same, and call it "sanctification".

The difference is that Protestants usually see salvation as being a moment-in-time event, assured, from the moment of conversion. Orthodox view is more nuanced. We certainly believe in conversion, and we also believe perseverance is necessary. Part of perseverance is staying on the path - we would be concerned about anyone who went their own way with no effort to follow Christ, no repentance, etc. Many Protestants would agree, of course. And staying on the path will result in some degree of purification, depending on how well we cooperate with God. Eventually at some point, we MUST become actually completely purified.

Now, as to the purely Catholic teaching of purgatory - it does get complicated, because Catholics believe in both eternal consequences of sin (the ones that determine if you are "saved" or not) ... and these are forgiven through the Cross of Jesus Christ. Same as Protestants would say. However, Catholics (and they are unique in this) also believe there are temporal consequences, and these must be made right as well, in order for the soul to be made pure. This is where purgatory comes in. If the temporal consequences are not completely satisfied when the person dies, or the soul is not completely purified, Catholics believe it will result in the soul having to spend time in purgatory being purified. I can't try to justify that teaching, because I don't agree with it as Catholicism expresses it.

I think most Protestants assume either that they are not required to actually become really purified (only that they borrow Christ's righteousness). Or they believe that they are instantly purified when converted (in which case they have a hard time explaining why they continue to sin). Or they believe they are instantly purified at death.

Orthodoxy would say that we DO need to become really, truly purified - actually like Christ, and not just some pretend legal standing. However ... we don't dogmatize how or when that happens. Hopefully we are well into the process by living our lives in cooperation with God's grace. (And at least some Protestants believe this, because it is also what I believed when I was a Protestant.) At death, anything that remains, any attachment we might have to a particular sin, and so on ... somehow DOES have to be removed before we are suited to enjoy the presence of God. But HOW that happens - well, we don't claim to know. It may be in an instant, it may be that God allows time for the person to reflect on his life. It may be that we are purified by being torn away from our flesh, it may be that we are purified by coming into the presence of God. It may be something else. What we do NOT believe is that God punishes us for a set period of time in order to bring about purification.

(Interestingly, we actually must reject punishment of the soul apart from the body, because we believe that humans who are composite creatures of both body and soul - commit both good and evil acts in the body. If the soul deserves to be punished, the body would deserve it too - if the soul deserves to be rewarded, the body deserves it too. It would not serve a complete purpose to punish the soul without the body, in fact.)

That's the part I find curious ... that punishment somehow brings about purification. It is a feature of what nearly every Catholic who has described purgatory to me has said. And it is expressly NOT what Orthodox believe, and why we reject it (that and the time factor, and merits and indulgences to get time off, etc.).


But the thing that might help you to understand is that purgatory isn't about salvation. Only "saved" people go to purgatory, according to Catholics. Christ's sacrifice is still needed for the atonement. Purgatory is only about "finishing up" in being purified.

The real question for you would be, whether or not you believe you are, or have to be, ACTUALLY purified. And even that has nuances that could be answered different ways, depending upon how it is understood. We do not consider purification to include the final stages of salvation, but only the initial stages. We would say that we ought no longer be slaves to sin, but we are not yet completely like Christ. And in between there are steps, so without being able to describe them, I'm not sure I could explain.

Not sure if this helps, but it's my best effort. Again, like I said, my place isn't at all to convince, just trying to explain as far as I understand myself, which admittedly is limited when it comes to Catholic theology.

God be with you.

So far I can't find anyone that will explain how the teaching of purgatory doesn't contradict these scriptures. Every time I'm in a conversation with a catholic and I mention these verses they either never reply or change the subject to apostolic succession or sola scriptura.

“yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:22-23‬ ‭ASV‬‬

“And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:11‬ ‭ASV‬‬

“And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:17-20‬ ‭ASV‬‬

These are just a few of the many examples that show that our sins are already paid in full by Jesus' sacrifice. All of these are said in the past tense meaning this has already taken place. We are reconciled, made right with God, sanctified, justified, and these are the result in the present tense we are holy and without blemish, unreproveable before God, there is no more offering for sin, having the boldness to enter the holy place. Paul was writing to sinners and he knew this but this is what he proclaimed to those sinners. Paul didn't know if they confessed every sin or if they had been baptized and hadn't sinned afterwards. Surely he wasn't writing to people who had already gone thru purgatory. These are epistles which took a very long time to reach their destination but he is absolutely convinced that these people are completely cleansed of all sin, made right with God, and able to enter the most holy place. If someone could please explain to me how purgatory doesn't contradict these verses then I might be able to believe in it. As for now I would rather die placing all my faith in Jesus Christ as my savior than believe that His sacrifice didn't fully cleanse me of all my sins.

 

[Erose]

Well, yeah...because purgatory is unscriptural.

I don't think it is. But on this we are just going to have to disagree on; the lenses in which we both read Scripture are just too different.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hello, BRN32FAN,

I will try to help a little, since you haven't gotten a Catholic to reply. But please remember that this is not something we teach, and so I welcome any correction from Catholics about what they actually believe if I get any details wrong. And I won't be arguing FOR a belief in purgatory, since we (Orthodox) do not teach it.

Really, from your post, I would have to ask you a question though. Do you consider that you are immediately sanctified and made like Christ at the moment of conversion? That could be the communication breakdown, if that's what you believe. Most Protestants see it as a sort of legal standing, "as if" they are like Christ. But do not believe that they are actually, truly sanctified at that point. Protestants can vary a lot though. Do you believe that Christians should begin to undergo a process of becoming ACTUALLY more like Christ, being changed, being sanctified, after they are converted/"saved"?

It kind of depends where you fall on that question.

The early Church, which both Catholics and Orthodox teach the same doctrines, believed that it was the normal process of the Christian walk to begin being changed, by cooperating with the grace of God, to ACTUALLY become more like Christ - not just to be seen by God through "Christ-tinted glasses" as it were. Many Protestants believe the same, and call it "sanctification".

The difference is that Protestants usually see salvation as being a moment-in-time event, assured, from the moment of conversion. Orthodox view is more nuanced. We certainly believe in conversion, and we also believe perseverance is necessary. Part of perseverance is staying on the path - we would be concerned about anyone who went their own way with no effort to follow Christ, no repentance, etc. Many Protestants would agree, of course. And staying on the path will result in some degree of purification, depending on how well we cooperate with God. Eventually at some point, we MUST become actually completely purified.

Now, as to the purely Catholic teaching of purgatory - it does get complicated, because Catholics believe in both eternal consequences of sin (the ones that determine if you are "saved" or not) ... and these are forgiven through the Cross of Jesus Christ. Same as Protestants would say. However, Catholics (and they are unique in this) also believe there are temporal consequences, and these must be made right as well, in order for the soul to be made pure. This is where purgatory comes in. If the temporal consequences are not completely satisfied when the person dies, or the soul is not completely purified, Catholics believe it will result in the soul having to spend time in purgatory being purified. I can't try to justify that teaching, because I don't agree with it as Catholicism expresses it.

I think most Protestants assume either that they are not required to actually become really purified (only that they borrow Christ's righteousness). Or they believe that they are instantly purified when converted (in which case they have a hard time explaining why they continue to sin). Or they believe they are instantly purified at death.

Orthodoxy would say that we DO need to become really, truly purified - actually like Christ, and not just some pretend legal standing. However ... we don't dogmatize how or when that happens. Hopefully we are well into the process by living our lives in cooperation with God's grace. (And at least some Protestants believe this, because it is also what I believed when I was a Protestant.) At death, anything that remains, any attachment we might have to a particular sin, and so on ... somehow DOES have to be removed before we are suited to enjoy the presence of God. But HOW that happens - well, we don't claim to know. It may be in an instant, it may be that God allows time for the person to reflect on his life. It may be that we are purified by being torn away from our flesh, it may be that we are purified by coming into the presence of God. It may be something else. What we do NOT believe is that God punishes us for a set period of time in order to bring about purification.

(Interestingly, we actually must reject punishment of the soul apart from the body, because we believe that humans who are composite creatures of both body and soul - commit both good and evil acts in the body. If the soul deserves to be punished, the body would deserve it too - if the soul deserves to be rewarded, the body deserves it too. It would not serve a complete purpose to punish the soul without the body, in fact.)

That's the part I find curious ... that punishment somehow brings about purification. It is a feature of what nearly every Catholic who has described purgatory to me has said. And it is expressly NOT what Orthodox believe, and why we reject it (that and the time factor, and merits and indulgences to get time off, etc.).


But the thing that might help you to understand is that purgatory isn't about salvation. Only "saved" people go to purgatory, according to Catholics. Christ's sacrifice is still needed for the atonement. Purgatory is only about "finishing up" in being purified.

The real question for you would be, whether or not you believe you are, or have to be, ACTUALLY purified. And even that has nuances that could be answered different ways, depending upon how it is understood. We do not consider purification to include the final stages of salvation, but only the initial stages. We would say that we ought no longer be slaves to sin, but we are not yet completely like Christ. And in between there are steps, so without being able to describe them, I'm not sure I could explain.

Not sure if this helps, but it's my best effort. Again, like I said, my place isn't at all to convince, just trying to explain as far as I understand myself, which admittedly is limited when it comes to Catholic theology.

God be with you.

In answer to your first two questions yes I believe we are sanctified when we accept Jesus as our savior. But that does not depend on us being Christ like because no one can ever be Christ like. We strive to be as much like Him as we can but we will all fail. So our sanctification does not rely on us being Christ like. I do agree that we must always keep striving to be like Jesus. Our salvation relies on us keeping our faith in Jesus as our savior.

“yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:22-23‬ ‭ASV

In this verse we can see that Paul says God has reconciled us as long as we stay in our faith. Like I said in my post he says this in the past tense indicating that we are already saved. I have a different outlook on how our works play a role in our salvation than most Protestants. Honestly I don't consider myself a Protestant. I simply consider myself a Christian. I'm not concerned with what Martin Luther did or taught. He also did some things that were not very Christian. I don't know why so many people tend to cling to religious doctrines instead of letting the bible and the Holy Spirit be the teacher. I'm very glad that I found a church that believes this also. That's why we are nondenominational. I believe in sola fide but not the conventional understanding of it. I believe that we are saved by God's grace and our works cannot earn grace. The definition of grace is a free and unmerited favor of God. It's not something we can work to earn. I believe that works are absolutely necessary to having a genuine faith. Like James said faith without works is dead. I believe that James is not contradicting Ephesians when he says we are not saved by faith alone. I do think that he conveyed it a bit awkwardly tho and it does look like a contradiction. By the context of what James says I believe that he is saying that works are evidence of our faith and proof that our faith is genuine. If we say we have faith but we don't do good works that is evidence that our faith is not genuine because it is the Holy Spirit that compels us to do good works. We receive the Holy Spirit thru faith. So that is why I believe that we are saved by faith and not works. Our works are evidence that we are led by the Holy Spirit. I do believe in once saved always saved. Many people ask me well what if someone renounces their faith. I believe if they renounce their faith they were never truly saved to begin with. I wish I could continue but my plane is boarding for the Philippines. Have a blessed day

 

[Erose]

OK, I think I'm beginning to see my way a little clearer to understand at least what the issues are. I can't say yet that I fully understand the Catholic position.

Okay, I'm going to try to go through this one and answer what I can. There is a lot here to unpack, and so hopefully I can without writing a book while doing so.

I think a major question is - what is the result of sin? Do we say there are consequences, that punishment is necessary, that payment is required, that satisfaction is required? I see, Erose, you already replaced payment with satisfaction. I think I need to understand what sort of "satisfaction". The thing that makes it not work for Orthodoxy is to say that God exacts punishment as a temporal consequence of sin.

Here is the nuts and bolts of this. All sin has consequences. Whether or not we like it, sin affects us negatively. We may not think so at the time, no matter how slight, there is affects and they are always negative.

For example stealing a piece of bubble gum. Even though the store you stole it from may be out only a few cents because you stole that gum, but when at the end of the year, lets say a 1000 pieces of bubble gum were stolen. 5 cents lost turns into $50.00 of profit lost because of stealing. Add that to all the other losses that the store takes, that may impact whether or not the store owner can give a raise to his people for the next year. This is just a scenario but it is something that can happen.

Anyway, the point being no matter how slight all sin has consequences.

The consequences of sin COULD BE experienced as punishment for us ... sometimes the natural consequences are punishment. Sometimes God may in fact punish. But we certainly would NOT say that God demands satisfaction in the form of punishment. That is precisely why we have a problem with penal substitution as well.

What we say is justice demands satisfaction. God requires satisfaction for sin. How that satisfaction happens is upon us. Does it have to be punishment? No. It could be doing works of mercy, or spending time in prayer and mortification trying to break the influence on us that our predominate faults have. It may be that satisfaction for our sins is exacted on us by society. There are many ways that satisfaction can be had, but justice demands satisfaction. This isn't a bad thing, and I'm not sure why some would consider it to be that way.

We would say that sin does separate us from God, requiring forgiveness (which is ultimately offered through Christ) in order for us to be restored to right relationship with God and be "saved" in the end.

We see two types of sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin does separate us from God, and requires reconciliation with God and mankind; venial sin doesn't separate us from God, but does harm our relationship; and if one continues in said venial sin, it may lead to more grievous sins.

An example of what we speak of here is that in a marriage one would classify adultery as a mortal sin against said marriage. Adultery, especially when discovered, causes a rift between spouses, that requires a great deal of satisfaction on the part of the adulter(ous) to heal if it is even possible to do so, right? But what about a lie? Lets say you bought something that was a little on the expensive side, and you hid it from your spouse. When he/she finds out about it, there may be a fight or there might not be, but there is a risk that the relationship is damaged. Because now the other spouse isn't sure if they can trust the other. This would be like a venial sin.

Sin also does other things. It changes us (just as coopering with God's grace in doing good things changes us .... everything changes us, inclines us toward God or away, makes us like Christ or different. There is little that is truly neutral). Those negative effects on our souls have to be dealt with, when they incline us toward sin. That the Orthodox would agree we need to be purged of.

And sin further affects others directly, and indirectly, and even the cosmos. But I think that would just confuse the issue to discuss right now.

These are what we call consequences of sin.

How we are purged from those effects would seem to be the issue. Orthodox sees this as being possible in a number of ways. Again, cooperation with the grace of God, which can come about through all kinds of ways - obeying God's commandments, acts of love and charity to others, receiving the sacraments, through our prayers, accepting the help of God and trusting Him as we suffer, and probably innumerable other ways. And if we die without being fully cleansed, it still must be accomplished. In another post, I mentioned some possibilities from our point of view how this might be accomplished.

But what I really question is the necessity (not possibility) of punishment, specifically, and that God requires it, and that punishment necessarily purges us.

These are what we call proper responses in repentance. Again doing these things helps in making satisfaction.

In all honesty the idea of punishment, would really be in the eye of the person enduring it. A good Christian IMO doing penance for a sin, to help reduce the influence of that sin, would classify the penance as a punishment. Weaker brethren, I can see viewing it as such. But also I think that a good Christian going through a period of torment, because of a sin committed, would not be wrong in thinking that this torment is just punishment for the sin they committed.

Again using the example of an adulter being found out by his spouse, and the spouse kicking him out of their house; if said adulter was truly repentant of his actions would find that this and even more is just punishment for their sins don't you think?

God MIGHT punish, as He sees fit. And punishment MIGHT purge us. We obviously believe this as human beings, else we would not hope that punishing our children or criminals might possibly work for their rehabilitation.

Check

But the NECESSITY is a big problem for Orthodox. God may well choose another way. And the use of the term "satisfaction" introduces a big red flag, since you insisted on that change. Does that mean that God is not satisfied until and unless He punishes us, and then and only then can we be cleansed or forgiven? If I'm misunderstanding, please do explain how Catholics see this.

Yes you are misunderstanding the position. Again the quote I provided by St. John Cassius should be ample explanation of the Catholic position. Punishment is only one possible means of satisfaction. There are quite a few others. I'll quote St. John Cassius again here:

You see then what great means of obtaining mercy the compassion of our Saviour has laid open to us, so that no one when longing for salvation need be crushed by despair, as he sees himself called to life by so many remedies. For if you plead that owing to weakness of the flesh you cannot get rid of your sins by fasting, and you cannot say: My knees are weak from fasting, and my flesh is changed for oil; for I have eaten ashes for my bread, and mingled my drink with weeping, then atone for them by profuse almsgiving. If you have nothing that you can give to the needy (although the claims of want and poverty exclude none from this office, since the two mites of the widow are ranked higher than the splendid giftsof the rich, and the Lord promises that He will give a reward for a cup of cold water), at least you can purge them away by amendment of life. But if you cannot secure perfection in goodness by the eradication of all your faults, you can show a pious anxiety for the good and salvation of another. But if you complain that you are not equal to this service, you can cover your sins by the affection of love. And if in this also some sluggishness of mind makes you weak, at least you should submissively with a feeling of humility entreat for remedies for your wounds by the prayers and intercession of the saints.

Even if God were satisfied by inflicting punishment, how is it that punishment necessarily purges us from impurities. I concede that it can, but in some cases, it may not. Reference the above criminals, very few are actually rehabilitated as a result of incarceration.

In all reality, it falls to the Judge. God is by far and away the ultimate psychologist. He knows us by far and away better than we know ourselves. He knows what we need far better than we do. So if He knows that suffering for a sin, will help us be purged from it, then He will send upon us suffering. Much like when we were children, our parents punished us when we acted up. The intent was to correct said behavior, which in some cases worked in others didn't. But God knows us far better than our parents did.

From our point of view "penance" is meant to be rehabilitative, restorative, NOT ever as some kind of punishment. We don't even generally call them penances. It might be to read a certain book, or make a particular adjustment in our prayer rule (but not praying x-number of prayers as some kind of reparation for this particular sin).

Penance is the same for us. But we need to understand here that the Church has always viewed Penance as a form of Satisfaction for Sin. That is what a Penance is. I think the thing you are getting confused about here and I want to clarify to you is that not all forms of Satisfaction for Sin is punishment, as St. John Cassius points out in his very wonderful writing on the subject, which I would highly recommend reading. CHURCH FATHERS: Conference 20 (John Cassian)

Yes, sometimes there are consequences or we might even call punishment that happens. But we do not extrapolate from that and say that EVERYone must be punished. After all, the woman caught in the act of adultery wasn't. And I can't offhand recall an instance of Jesus punishing any person who showed repentance. We cannot draw conclusions or make a doctrine based on a sometimes-event in the Old Testament when Christ Himself responded differently when He was with us in the flesh.

The Church has never made this claim. The claim being made is satisfaction is part of it. What that satisfaction is varies. To start off with the woman caught in the act of adultery, already suffered a great deal at the hands of the mob did she not? The humiliation of being called out publicly for example. Also we must also remember what Jesus said to her to after He forgave her. Did He not say go and sin no more? No longer falling in the sin that we commit, and no longer having a desire to do so is what St. John Cassian says is when we know that Satisfaction has been met: Wherefore in order to satisfy as briefly and shortly as possible, your desire and question, the full and perfectdescription of penitence is, never again to yield to those sins for which we do penance, or for which our conscience is pricked. But the proof of satisfaction and pardon is for us to have expelled the love of them from our hearts. For each one may be sure that he is not yet free from his former sins as long as any image of those sins which he has committed or of others like them dances before his eyes, and I will not say a delight in— but the recollection of— them haunts his inmost soul while he is devoting himself to satisfaction for them and to tears. And so one who is on the watch to make satisfaction may then feel sure that he is free from his sins and that he has obtained pardon for past faults, when he never feels that his heart is stirred by the allurements and imaginations of these same sins. Wherefore the truest test of penitence and witness of pardon is found in our own conscience, which even before the day of judgment and of knowledge, while we are still in the flesh, discloses our acquittal from guilt, and reveals the end of satisfaction and the grace of forgiveness. And that what has been said may be more significantly expressed, then only should we believe that the stains of past sins are forgiven us, when the desires for present delights as well as the passions have been expelled from our heart. (Chapter 5)

We would agree that through many means we can cooperate with the grace of God in order to be changed (purged of the effects sin creates on our soul). But I'm not sure if "satisfaction" is the right word. I need a definition of what "satisfaction" is. Again, if it is that God must be satisfied with our suffering in some way in order to .... forgive? purge? us? Then no, we cannot agree. Rather, these things are ways that we can participate in the work God does in us, by His grace, freely available, and when we cooperate with God, we ARE changed, purged.

I might be misunderstanding you, but the word "satisfaction" implies that to me.

Again I would recommend reading the treatise on the subject by St John Cassian that I linked above.

The decision to return the bike, or not - or to pay for the broken window, or not - can be indicative of the heart condition. We are forgiven based on our heart condition. I suppose it is possible we could grudgingly return the bike or pay for the window and not be sorry for what we did, and no, we may well not be forgiven in that case, if we don't believe we did anything wrong.

A sure sign of true repentance isn't just feeling guilty for committing a sin; but also a desire to make things right as well. So a truly repentative bike thief, would if at all possible to return the bike, and to make things right with the person he wronged.

I do think that people confuse repentance with guilt; and that should not be the case.

On the other hand, if we cannot afford to pay for the broken window, our forgiveness does not hinge on our ability to do so. Yes, we should certainly make reparations where we can, and generally that will be the case. But it is not the actual reparation that causes God to forgive us. Rather, we are forgiven for those sins we repent of, and if we have truly repented, we should desire to make things right as far as we are able. But if the bike has been destroyed and we cannot buy another, we can still be forgiven, despite our inability to return it.

Yes, the key here is true repentance. Forgiveness is dependent upon true repentance, not just on feeling guilt. This is the difference between Judas Iscariot and St. Peter right? Both denied Christ, and both felt guilt and shame afterwards, but why was St. Peter forgiven and Judas not? Because St. Peter repented, where Judas only felt guilt.

That may seem like quibbling if you were only trying to make a point. But to us it is repentance, and the heart, that matters, and that comes before we go to Confession. What we do after confession may well reflect the true state of our heart, but it is not in itself a condition for forgiveness.

For us it goes hand in hand. Feeling guilty isn't enough, nor confessing that sin isn't enough; there has to be a true desire to make things right (satisfaction). If it is against a neighbor, then we should strive, to do what is in our power to make things right with them. If it is a sin that we have issues with, then our intent should be to overcome that sin, and do it no more; and do what we can to overcome it. Without the desire to make things right, and the intent to do so, then you are truly not repentant of your sins.

We do believe that our prayers help the dead, but in what way we do not speculate. Could God momentarily lesson the pain of one in torment - a finger dipped in water as the rich man in the parable asked? Maybe. We don't know. Could God assist somehow one who in the process of being purged (though we do not assume that we know this is something that happens, not at all). Maybe. We don't know. We don't assume that someone who died with an evil heart can be "saved" by our prayers. But we don't speculate anything at all. We pray for mercy on them, we pray because we love them. But what God does with these prayers, we absolutely do not speculate.

All we know is that our prayers help our brethren in the state of purgatory. Like you we are not sure how, but we just know that they do. We also know that the prayers of those who are righteous do more than those of us who are still working on getting to that point.

We don't disagree with this. However ... I don't think this is saying that there is a literal fire of purgatory that burns out sins, unless you want to add that purgatory is ALSO the case of being yanked through a hole and our sins scraped off. We do expect that it is very possible that some distress, discomfort, pain, suffering, what have you - may well afflict a soul as it is being separated from that which binds it to earth, or cleansed of remaining passions. It could be a flash so quick that it is not felt - or not. We don't know, but if the soul experiences it in a negative way, well, we wouldn't be at all surprised. It is essentially expected.

I also note that St. Gregory says specifically that this is NOT punishment inflicted by God. As I said, that would be one of the major issues we have with purgatory, if it is considered as punishment (for temporal sins).

We don't claim that it is a literal fire either. We really don't know how this is done. We do use the allusion to fire, based upon 1 Cor, and quite a few writings on the subject by the ECFs.

I like what Pope Benedict XVI said in Spe Salvi: ...that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion.

I think that i will post the passage on purgatory from Spe Salvi after I finish up here. Pope Benedict does a much better job than I can possibly do to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory.

Concerning using the term punishment. Quite honestly wouldn't this be in the eye of the beholder?

From what I understand, the idea of merits is quite a bit more developed in Catholicism. Do you not say there is some kind of measured amount of grace available, because of the good deeds done by Christ and many others, and that these can be applied by the Catholic Church to the account of people to offset their sins?

This isn't the best way to look at this. One of the things that confuses folks is that throughout the history of the Church there have been what is called "theological opinions" and practices that grew in popularity and waned. This understanding of merits is one of them. If there is truly a quantifiable measurement of merit, only God knows what that is.

Purely merit, is what we do as members of the Church for others. For example the merit from me explaining this to you, maybe that you understand the position better, and have a better appreciation on where we come from on this matter. Merit is spoken of quite a bit by the Early Church Fathers, and there is a belief that the merits of the Saints in heaven, still help us here on earth. Just like they did while they were still here physically. But this is a different subject and we should convolute these thread on this subject.

You'll have to quote the Scripture, please. I'm remembering that love covers a multitude of sins.

Tobit 4: [7] Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee. [8]According to thy ability be merciful. [9] If thou have much give abundantly: if thou have a little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little. [10] For thus thou storest up to thyself a good reward for the day of necessity. [11] For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. [12] Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.

Tobit 12: [8]Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold: [9]For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.

Sirach: [33] Water quencheth a flaming fire, and alms resisteth sins: [34] And God provideth for him that sheweth favour: he remembereth him afterwards, and in the time of his fall he shall find a sure stay.

Daniel 4: [24] Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and redeem thou thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor: perhaps he will forgive thy offences.

Mat 6: [3] But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. [4] That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.

And we recognize no such thing as merits, no. Rather the grace of God is freely available, without measure. Yes, love covers a multitude of sins, and cooperating with God in love changes us and purges us of our passions, and effects of sin on our soul. But I don't think it is anything like the Catholic treasury of merits, unless I've been very misinformed (which is entirely possible, I will admit).

This seems to be one of the things, along with understanding the requirement of Satisfaction that the Orthodox have not retained. I'm not sure why this is the case, but perhaps you could help me on it, because both Satisfaction and merits are frequently discussed in the ECFs.

Well ... whether or not God is actually "just" is a subject in its own. People will get very upset if we say that He is not, but the fact is that He does NOT deal with us after our sins and as we deserve, and as justice might demand. Mercy actually triumphs over justice, in some cases. There is a wonderful quote by one of the Saints or the ECFs (or someone who is both) that I wish I had saved about this. Again, the question is, do Catholics assume that God had some kind of necessary "punishment" that HAD TO BE meted out on SOMEone before He was able or willing to forgive us, and did Christ serve as that whipping boy? We do reject the part that says it was suffering that God demanded before He would forgive, and we further reject that God is constrained by some cosmic idea of justice such that He could not forgive without exacting a pound of flesh first, even if He wanted to.

This matter here is more complicated than what this thread should be about, and would merit its own thread IMO. For us God IS JUSTICE, He IS MERCY. There are not just traits, but rather who He is. Scripture is very explicit that God is just, and it speaks very frequently about His justice. Anyway I think that this is one of those things that we as Catholics are in the middle between Orthodox Christians who emphasize God's mercy, and Protestants who emphasize God's Justice.

 

[Erose]

Here is the excerpt from Spe Salvi and encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI on the subject as promised:
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[37]. 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[38].

46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God's judgement according to each person's particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.

47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

48. A further point must be mentioned here, because it is important for the practice of Christian hope. Early Jewish thought includes the idea that one can help the deceased in their intermediate state through prayer (see for example 2 Macc 12:38-45; first century BC). The equivalent practice was readily adopted by Christians and is common to the Eastern and Western Church. The East does not recognize the purifying and expiatory suffering of souls in the afterlife, but it does acknowledge various levels of beatitude and of suffering in the intermediate state. The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today. Who would not feel the need to convey to their departed loved ones a sign of kindness, a gesture of gratitude or even a request for pardon? Now a further question arises: if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. And for that there is no need to convert earthly time into God's time: in the communion of souls simple terrestrial time is superseded. It is never too late to touch the heart of another, nor is it ever in vain. In this way we further clarify an important element of the Christian concept of hope. Our hope is always essentially also hope for others; only thus is it truly hope for me too[40]. As Christians we should never limit ourselves to asking: how can I save myself? We should also ask: what can I do in order that others may be saved and that for them too the star of hope may rise? Then I will have done my utmost for my own personal salvation as well.

 

[Tutorman]

I think most Protestants assume either that they are not required to actually become really purified (only that they borrow Christ's righteousness). Or they believe that they are instantly purified when converted (in which case they have a hard time explaining why they continue to sin). Or they believe they are instantly purified at death.

I have heard when I was a Protestant of the Evangelical type that Christ blood covers all sin but in essence if something is covered underneath it is still there, never understood that m
yself

 

[Targaryen]

I have heard when I was a Protestant of the Evangelical type that Christ blood covers all sin but in essence if something is covered underneath it is still there, never understood that m
yself

That seems contradictory to most Protestant belief concerning sins of the individual upon earthly death that I've ever heard.

Was this a mainline group?

 

[Tutorman]

No just your average Evangelicals, heard it all the time that Christ blood covered sins

 

[Targaryen]

No just your average Evangelicals, heard it all the time that Christ blood covered sins

It washes away sins if we repent.

*sighs* More "evangelical" heterodoxy