Scriptural references to Purgatory - Old and New Testament

[Erose]

Yup I agree there is always a consequence for sin. Luckily for us Jesus already returned the bike and suffered the consequences for us. So are we saved by paying or suffering for our sins or are we saved by God's grace? The teaching of purgatory says that Revelations 21:27 is the reason why we must be purified in purgatory.

“and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21:27‬ ‭ASV‬‬

Now let's look at what Paul has to say about this in Colossians 1:21-22

“And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:21-22‬ ‭ASV‬‬
Colossians 1:21-22; And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:

We are made holy and without blemish and unreproveable before God by Jesus' sacrifice. Absolutely nothing mentioned about purgatory. We are reconciled past tense meaning this has already happened. Again in Hebrews 10:17-20

“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

By Jesus' sacrifice we can enter the most holy place and God will not remember our sins. Hence the vail was torn top to bottom and it is finished. The examples you gave of Moses and David, Jesus had not sacrificed himself yet. At that time they were still under the old covenant. Oh by the way I did mean to reply earlier about what I said about the Old Testament. I did not convey that correctly. What I meant was that the old covenant was obsolete. Not the Old Testament. Sorry about the mistake there. I'd like to continue but my lunch break is over. Have a blessed day

Here is the issue that Protestants seem to have on this matter. You confuse initial justification with what happens after justification. I propose my question to you as well: After you are justified, can and do you still sin?

 

[Erose]

Which part of it is unclear?

The "no" part.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The "no" part.

Goodness, there's nothing ambiguous about it at all.

You said earlier that Jesus had to die on the cross because sin requires some form of satisfaction (post #74), and yet you believe that people are made to suffer in purgatory to pay for their sins. I was hoping you would see the inconsistency in that, but perhaps not.

Edit:

Here is the issue that Protestants seem to have on this matter. You confuse initial justification with what happens after justification.

I think I see your confusion now. Tell me, which of my sins do you think Jesus died for and which were off His list.

 

[Erose]

Goodness, there's nothing ambiguous about it at all.

Quite a bit.

You said earlier that Jesus had to die on the cross because sin requires some form of satisfaction (post #74), and yet you believe that people are made to suffer in purgatory to pay for their sins. I was hoping you would see the inconsistency in that, but perhaps not.

Not pay, but rather be cleansed. Here is the issue, all of us have issues. There are things that we all fight in our lives to overcome that leads us to sin. Some of us have issues with our temper, others with sex, others with lying, etc., etc., etc. We are not going into heaven with this personal issues.

Think of purgatory as like, when you were a kid and went outside and played in the mud, and got really nasty, to the point where your mom and/or dad wasn't going to let you back into their house without first giving you a rinse off, and shed those clothes, and then head to the shower or bath to finish up. That is kind of like what purgatory is, get rid of those inclinations to sin, as well as those consequences to sin. For example if alcoholism is something that you fight against daily in your life and you die in God's grace you aren't going to live in God's presence as an alcoholic. These things will be cleansed from you soul, and you will be made clean before entering God's presence. Isn't that what Scripture says, nothing unclean can enter God's presence and live?

I think I see your confusion now. Tell me, which of my sins do you think Jesus died for and which were off His list.

Look it isn't that hard here. Do you or do you not still commit sin? Is there or is there not things in your life that you deal with, that tend to lead to you sinning?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Goodness, there's nothing ambiguous about it at all.

You said earlier that Jesus had to die on the cross because sin requires some form of satisfaction (post #74), and yet you believe that people are made to suffer in purgatory to pay for their sins. I was hoping you would see the inconsistency in that, but perhaps not.

Edit:



I think I see your confusion now. Tell me, which of my sins do you think Jesus died for and which were off His list.

I may be able to help, Jay. Though incompletely. I remember asking similar questions.

Erose, please correct me if I explain this wrongly. But I think I know what Jay isn't understanding.

Catholics believe that there are TWO kinds of consequences for sin. There is the eternal part, that has to do with salvation, where Christ is involved. Then there is the "temporal" part, where there is yet some payment that must be made for every sin. (I do not know if mortal/venial matters, or if both require both kinds of consequences).

Purgatory is only for the temporal part, thus Catholics teach that souls in purgatory are "saved" ... just not fully cleansed. The temporal consequences can also be dealt with in various other ways, which I probably should not try to list.


This is not the way Orthodoxy teaches it, btw. It just took me a long time to understand in Catholicism, and led to me misunderstanding a lot if what they were saying, which sounded like doublespeak to Protestant ears never exposed to such a teaching.

I hope this helps a little.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Not pay, but rather be cleansed. Here is the issue, all of us have issues. There are things that we all fight in our lives to overcome that leads us to sin. Some of us have issues with our temper, others with sex, others with lying, etc., etc., etc. We are not going into heaven with this personal issues.

Interesting theory. Not the least bit scriptural though.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

 

[Erose]

Erose, please correct me if I explain this wrongly. But I think I know what Jay isn't understanding.

Catholics believe that there are TWO kinds of consequences for sin. There is the eternal part, that has to do with salvation, where Christ is involved. Then there is the "temporal" part, where there is yet some payment that must be made for every sin. (I do not know if mortal/venial matters, or if both require both kinds of consequences).

The only issue here is using the term payment, satisfaction is the term used by the Church Fathers, and IMO a better descriptive term.

Purgatory is only for the temporal part, thus Catholics teach that souls in purgatory are "saved" ... just not fully cleansed. The temporal consequences can also be dealt with in various other ways, which I probably should not try to list.

Check.

This is not the way Orthodoxy teaches it, btw. It just took me a long time to understand in Catholicism, and led to me misunderstanding a lot if what they were saying, which sounded like doublespeak to Protestant ears never exposed to such a teaching.

This is something here. I'm myself am not sure how Orthodoxy teaches it either. Be an interesting second thread.

Anyway, all and all a good explanation.

 

[Erose]

Interesting theory. Not the least bit scriptural though.

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

We don't have just Scripture, and the verse you quoted has nothing to do with purgatory, but rather to do with redemption.

 

[Phil 1:21]

We don't have just Scripture, and the verse you quoted has nothing to do with purgatory, but rather to do with redemption.

Well, yeah...because purgatory is unscriptural.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here is the issue that Protestants seem to have on this matter. You confuse initial justification with what happens after justification. I propose my question to you as well: After you are justified, can and do you still sin?

Yes I do sin. Now let me ask you a question in return please. Was Paul teaching to sinners?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here is the issue that Protestants seem to have on this matter. You confuse initial justification with what happens after justification. I propose my question to you as well: After you are justified, can and do you still sin?

Ok I'll answer my own question. Of course Paul was teaching to sinners when he said that we are reconciled holy and blameless and we stand before God without a SINGLE FAULT. So now my question is how does the teaching of purgatory not contradict this?

 

[mark46]

I also believe this.

We Anglo-Catholics have been told this for centuries. The story goes that John Wesley (and Anglican for his whole life) was ordained by an Orthodox bishop.

Much of the differences among us (and here I really mean among all traditional Christians) are not at all about "essentials".

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The doctrine of temporal punishment due to sin, is one of those doctrines that I am curious why the Orthodox ceased to accept this revealed truth. It is explicitly taught in the Fathers and is explicitly taught in Scripture as well. There are reasons why the early Church even in the Ecumenical Councils assigned "penances" upon those who committed grievous sins, and some of these penances were quite long.

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).

We also believe that there are natural consequences to sinful acts that one would consider punishment for sin, but we also believe that God does at times impose punishment upon us, for our sins even when we are forgiven. David loosing his son, due to adultery is one example; Moses and Aaron not being allowed to enter the Promise Land is another example. In both cases they were forgiven for their sins against God and in both cases they still received punishment for their sins.

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.

Its not necessarily payment, but rather satisfaction. St. John Cassius said: 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 gifts of 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. (St. John Cassius, Conferences XX, Ch VIII)

So what St. John Cassius writes is that God gives us many means by which we can make satisfaction for the sins which we commit, so no one is can claim that they cannot do so. If you are interested in knowing more about this he wrote a very interesting document on the subject of Repentance and Satisfaction that you may want to read. It is his Conference XX. Let us not forget that he learned at the feet of the Egyptian Desert Fathers.

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.

Here I make a few comments.

1) I will give you an example: If I stole a bike from a neighbor, and later felt remorse for doing so, confess my sins to my priest, but decide to keep the bike instead of giving it back to my neighbor, am I forgiven?

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.

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.

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.

2) Much of what you wrote about what happens after death is the doctrine of purgatory. Purgatory (and it seems that we do this frequently) is not very complicated.

Perhaps. But I would stand by whatever I wrote, but I cannot affirm whatever in addition may be said about purgatory. That may be too much of a rabbit-trail at present though, given what happened with the Eucharist. But we could discuss it as an aside or later if you wish.

3) Either believe that the prayers for the dead do something for them or you don't. We know that prayers for the damned do not help them, because they are beyond our help, and this is what the Fathers also taught. We know that prayers for the Saints do not help them, because they don't need our prayers, and this also is taught by the Fathers. Then why do we believe our prayers help the rest? The Fathers did teach on this if that help you.

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.

Here is why we believe that one suffers in Purgatory, and I will quote St. Gregory of Nyssa here for he says it so much more elegantly than I can:
But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refinegold from the dross which it contains not only get this base alloy to melt in the fire, but are obliged to melt the pure gold along with the alloy, and then while this last is being consumed the gold remains, so, while evil is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by this fire. If a clay of the more tenacious kind is deeply plastered round a rope, and then the end of the rope is put through a narrow hole, and then some one on the further side violently pulls it by that end, the result must be that, while the rope itself obeys the force exerted, the clay that has been plastered upon it is scraped off it with this violent pulling and is left outside the hole, and, moreover, is the cause why the rope does not run easily through the passage, but has to undergo a violent tension at the hands of the puller. In such a manner, I think, we may figure to ourselves the agonized struggle of that soul which has wrapped itself up in earthy material passions, when God is drawing it, His own one, to Himself, and the foreign matter, which has somehow grown into its substance, has to be scraped from it by main force, and so occasions it that keen intolerable anguish.

Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.

That, said the Teacher, is my meaning; and also that the agony will be measured by the amount of evil there is in each individual. For it would not be reasonable to think that the man who has remained so long as we have supposed in evil known to be forbidden, and the man who has fallen only into moderate sins, should be tortured to the same amount in the judgment upon their vicious habit; but according to the quantity of material will be the longer or shorter time that that agonizing flame will be burning; that is, as long as there is fuel to feed it. In the case of the man who has acquired a heavy weight of material, the consuming fire must necessarily be very searching; but where that which the fire has to feed upon has spread less far, there the penetrating fierceness of the punishment is mitigated, so far as the subject itself, in the amount of its evil, is diminished. In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that, as we said above, the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to no receptacle being left for it? (St. Gregory of Nyssa On the Soul and Resurrection)

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).

In my opinion it just makes sense anyway. The sins which are our predominate faults are hard for us to get rid of because quite frankly there is a part of us that loves those faults. Loosing something that we love to do is extremely hard and painful is it not? For an extreme example of this think about the pain that a drug addict normally goes through when trying to get clean. Look at how difficult it is for an alcoholic to quit drinking. The deeper one falls into a predominate fault the harder it is for that person to pull out of it even with help.

Then you throw in the fact that one in the state of purgation knows that what they have done has pushed them further away from God, and it is going to take them longer to get to see God face to face. The pain of guilt and shame that we chose something over our Creator, should be overwhelming. So yes I can see purgatory being very painful. As sinful creatures we are, knowing what we know right now about the crucifixion, if we where shot back into time to that day of Redemption and were allowed to stand before our Lord on the cross, realizing that He is upon that cross because of me and what I have done....yes there is great pain and anguish, and should be by those in purgatory, as there should be among us before going to purgatory.

As I said we don't disagree that it would probably be a painful process, in some way and to some degree. In what way and to what degree, we do not speculate. Nor for how long. But yes, IF the soul is aware that he is temporarily bound in some way to his sins, I expect there would be great regret. That is not surprising. But we do not say for sure this is the case. If the soul is immediately purified at death, then there is not time for extended regret during the process.

This is another doctrine of the faith that it seems that you guys have lost. The ECF definitely taught it, and Scripture also teaches it. Does it not say that Alms-giving covers a multitude of sins?

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?

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

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).

I'm really confused by this. This doctrine to me was the easiest to understand because it is based upon Justice. We cannot forget that God is a just God, not just a merciful one.

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.

 

[mark46]

Here is the issue that Protestants seem to have on this matter. You confuse initial justification with what happens after justification. I propose my question to you as well: After you are justified, can and do you still sin?

Protestants understand three parts of what Catholics and Orthodox might call justification: justification, sanctification and glorification. Thus when we speak about justification, there is a language difference. Also, Protestants often use the word "saved" to mean "justified'.

Another issue is OSAS (once saved always saved), a critical debate among Protestants.

 

[mark46]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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).



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.



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.



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.

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.

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.



Perhaps. But I would stand by whatever I wrote, but I cannot affirm whatever in addition may be said about purgatory. That may be too much of a rabbit-trail at present though, given what happened with the Eucharist. But we could discuss it as an aside or later if you wish.


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.



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).



As I said we don't disagree that it would probably be a painful process, in some way and to some degree. In what way and to what degree, we do not speculate. Nor for how long. But yes, IF the soul is aware that he is temporarily bound in some way to his sins, I expect there would be great regret. That is not surprising. But we do not say for sure this is the case. If the soul is immediately purified at death, then there is not time for extended regret during the process.


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?

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

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).


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.

 

[mark46]

I apologize for venting. These comments are not meant to apply to any individuals in this thread.

We seem to make our Christian life so complicated, especially when we need to discuss details of how God does his work. I cringe whenever a priest tells folks that we must die to satisfy God's justice (our interpretation of how we think God judges). I also cringe when we state that each of us deserve to die because of Adam's sin.

We join the Christian family a baptism, and we grow closer to God each day of our lives. And yes, God judges us at the end of our lives. We know that Jesus will forgive our sin, and welcome us into heaven.
The Church provides many methods, including the mysteries, to help us in our walk. Surely, God differently in reaching different people. I am truly amazed at how many Christians seem to think that we must understand all of the faith in order to be right with God. I don't think that these folk have any understanding of how the early Church operated.

Many of us believe that the fire and brimstone sermons are necessary and on point, and that we have the job of shaming the world into accepting Christ. If they don't come, then it is their fault. Conversion is GOD'S work, not ours. We are to be God to our neighbors, both within and without our Church community.

 

[mark46]

Discussions of penal substitution are difficult when we have such different views of original sin and its consequences.

Did Jesus really die to pay the penalty for Adam's and our sin, because God's justice requires such a payment?

Or rather, did Jesus died to remove the barrier (curtain) between us and God, that has been their since the sin of Adam.

Make no mistake, the difference is crucial, primarily in our witness to others, especially those in our faith communities.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I apologize if anything I said made you feel you needed to vent. I didn't see any vent.

And I agree that we don't need to explain all of these things. I'm merely trying to understand Catholicism, or in some cases what I've been told about it (which I've been misinformed before, so I am interested to learn if I have been again).

But Orthodoxy is pretty much along the lines of NOT explaining how God works. As I said, we cooperate with the grace of God, and that can be in any number of ways. It seems we actually agree on a lot, and in trying to tease out and understand possible differences, I hope I have not offended.

For myself, I'm always ready to simply drop the questions and accept what we do know, and let the rest go. I apologize if I've given any other impression.

Discussions of penal substitution are difficult when we have such different views of original sin and its consequences.

Did Jesus really die to pay the penalty for Adam's and our sin, because God's justice requires such a payment?

Or rather, did Jesus died to remove the barrier (curtain) between us and God, that has been their since the sin of Adam.

Make no mistake, the difference is crucial, primarily in our witness to others, especially those in our faith communities.

I would say that primarily, Jesus died and defeated death through His death and resurrection. But aside from the fact that we can be made alive again, the means through which we are reconciled with God through His death sounds much closer to removing a barrier and opening the way, than it does to paying a penalty/being punished because God required it.

I do ask forgiveness if I have somehow offended.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here's how I'm seeing the bike analogy according to the teaching of purgatory. I steal a bike and Jesus returns the bike. Then God says I forgive you but I have to punch you in the face. Is that true forgiveness?

 

[mark46]

I would say that primarily, Jesus died and defeated death through His death and resurrection. But aside from the fact that we can be made alive again, the means through which we are reconciled with God through His death sounds much closer to removing a barrier and opening the way, than it does to paying a penalty/being punished because God required it.

I do ask forgiveness if I have somehow offended.

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.