New objections to Purgatory

[Vico]

This would be the consequences of sin - or reaping what you sow in the negative, and makes much more sense than external punishment. Thanks!

There is also the guilt of unrepented venial sin which purgatory resolves in addition to attachments. Any delay of or denial of the Beatific Vision, after death, is called a punishment.

 

[NormalBeliever]

I thought a bit more about the points from the OP so I’ll try to clarify what the objections are and be more precise with them. The objections I wrote about for the first example in the OP are to the specific analogy being used - a kid breaks a neighbor’s window, there is payment or repair involved, and there’s also the element of forgiveness. In real life, such situations would mostly go like this:

Neighbor: “You damaged my window!”

Kid: “Okay I’ll pay for it or repair it.”

Neighbor: “Good.”

There’s no talk of forgiveness there because this is a situation where the kid just pays the debt and/or repairs the window, showing he doesn’t want further damage. The neighbor can’t call the cops on him since the kid isn’t on a window-breaking spree. Changing the situation to the kid damaging his dad’s house; the dad can only kick the kid out if the kid is stubbornly unrepentant by refusing to stop and continuing to do damage - this would be removing someone who persistently wants to do bad - or if the kicking out is itself a way of paying the debt. But in both scenarios the kid wants to pay/repair things which clearly means he’s sorry and doesn’t want to do anymore bad stuff.

Which is why we can imagine the kid paying / repairing without asking or accepting forgiveness - because in the scenarios it just seems without use, like a mere formality declaring that the kid wants to pay or repair and so we await this to be completed, and he can’t be thrown out or arrested because that would be wrong. The kid already repents from his bad acts so the forgiveness isn’t about whether or not he continues to be bad or not, and most people in the usual scenario don’t think it’s forgiveness that the kid isn’t treated like an unrepentant troublemaker - because unrepentant troublemakers don’t agree to pay or repair, so he’s not unrepentant and shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s not treating the child according to a non-existent bad disposition (so acting in accord with reality) rather than forgiveness of something.

 

[NormalBeliever]

So what does forgiveness change? If forgiveness doesn’t at all address our debt but does something completely unrelated to that, then we’re left with a situation where God’s forgiveness has nothing to do with and doesn’t forgive any of our debt at all - which would go against the Biblical descriptions that say forgiveness does indeed cancel debt.

If it removes a part of the debt, that gets rid of the dilemma since forgiveness addresses the issue, but it opens up another - forgiveness just IS to forgive someone something and to cancel their debt in some way, as most people understand it; the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant even explicitly defines forgiveness as a cancellation of debt in some way. So the only other option is that God DOES forgive some debt in forgiveness, but not ALL since there is a category of temporal debt that He just doesn’t want to touch or address and leaves it to us to pay for.

Which then seems inconsistent with the Parable and other injuctions in the Gospel to forgive completely and always, 70 times 7, and would make God’s forgiveness only partial or half-hearted. The second example of Nineveh is also relevant to this, since it’s an example of God forgiving a city after it repented of its sins - God literally cancelled the temporal punishment He had planned to give to Nineveh, so this is a case of God’s forgiveness also cancelling temporal punishment rather than not.

So the question is: How do we get out of this dilemma?

 

[Gorgias]

So instead, what if the child refuses to accept the neighbor’s forgiveness and tells him he doesn’t want forgiveness - instead he’ll just pay for the window or help repair it himself, without all of that forgiveness stuff?

Offering to pay for the window shows an acceptance of guilt, doesn’t it? It’s a recognition of the damage done and an admission of responsibility. That’s a good start.

Nevertheless, a person who is not contrite (and therefore, does not seek forgiveness) isn’t forgiven. “Purgation” doesn’t apply to him. So, this isn’t an objection to ‘Purgatory’, as such. The person in this example doesn’t end up in purgatory, sadly. He ends up somewhere far worse (if he doesn’t repent and seek forgiveness).

If Purgatory is basically temporal punishment for forgiven sin that still has to be undergone because you still have to pay for sin in some way or God still has to punish you

“Punishment by God” is a traditional way of describing it, but I’m not certain that it’s an entirely accurate description. This isn’t about ‘punishment’ as penalty… but about justice through reparation.

(If you want to call that ‘punishment’, fine. But, it’s not akin to the ‘punishment of hell’.)

If the Ninevites had died shortly after their repentance and after everyone saw that God wouldn’t punish them, it seems unlikely that they would then still have to be punished in the afterlife for their previous sins - God literally just cancelled the temporal punishment that was to befall them had they not repented.

So it seems the case of Nineveh shows that when God forgives He also cancels temporal punishment.

You’re seeing this through 21st century eyes. In the context of the story – pre-Christian and pre-Mosaic Law – God’s “punishment” (and rewards!) were always in the ‘here and now’. So, if “the Ninevites had died shortly after their repentence”, then it would have been understood to mean that this was God’s punishment of them.

I think it’s anachronistic to draw any other conclusion, especially in a context of “cancelling temporal punishment” due to sin. Therefore, I also think that this doesn’t “show that when God forgives He also cancels temporal punishment.”

 

[NormalBeliever]

1. It’s not directly about Purgatory, so yes. It’s more about what role forgiveness plays in the particular example often cited.
2. Agreed - I prefer not to call it punishment. Though a similar point would apply to repairing for justice - God’s forgiveness can and does sometimes cancel out the temporal consequences of sin, as Nineveh shows. Though it’s also likely an example of indulgence for sins as well.
3. Yeah, the temporal time frame isn’t right. But a similar point could be made since Jonah explicitly said Nineveh had a 40-day timeframe. A few weeks after that would suffice for the later time-period; so if they died after that it would be unlikely that they would still have to be punished for the specific previous sins they did.

 

[NormalBeliever]

What I wrote implicitly addresses this particular response - the major issue is that forgiveness would likely then just be a formality declaring the fact the kid wants to pay / repair and is sorry.

if he willingly chooses to pay off the debt, chances are he has been forgiven from the dialogue with the owner.

The point was that this isn’t straightforwardly the case. In the typical conversation I quoted there is no mention of forgiveness between the two because people usually don’t see the need to involve it like that.

Think about this conceptually - the neighbor could ask the kid if he wanted forgiveness, and the kid could refuse forgiveness and instead just say he’ll pay / repair everything without needing any of that forgiveness stuff. Forgiveness can be conceptually separated from this situation because in real life we don’t give opening statements offering people forgiveness when they do something bad to us and want to pay / repair.

And even if the neighbor has to ceremonially forgive the kid so the kid can pay / repair, what if the neighbor refuses to forgive? Either the neighbor plans on cancelling the kid’s debt altogether, or he wants the kid to be arrested and forever exiled from him - which would be wrong since there’s no justification for that.

Forgiveness can’t be just a formal acceptance of the kid’s desire to pay or repair, and most people in the usual scenario don’t think it’s forgiveness that the kid isn’t treated like an unrepentant troublemaker - because unrepentant troublemakers don’t agree to pay or repair, so he’s not unrepentant and shouldn’t be treated as such. This wouldn’t be forgiveness of something, but simply not treating the child according to a non-existent bad disposition (which is acting in accord with reality).

 

[po18guy]

There is nothing new under the sun. So-called new objections are simply old objections re-packaged. Those old objections were overturned centuries ago. The problem is not purgatory - it is human objections. Those who may deny free will are certainly fond of employing it.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s more about what role forgiveness plays in the particular example often cited.

The role is “forgiveness eliminates the eternal punishment due to sin; forgiveness precedes purgation; purgation eliminates the temporal punishment due to sin.”

• God’s forgiveness can and does sometimes cancel out the temporal consequences of sin, as Nineveh shows. Though it’s also likely an example of indulgence for sins as well.

I would suggest that it shows neither of these things, and it’s anachronistic to suggest that it does. The lessons in this story – both for the original audience and for us as Christians – is “God always offers forgiveness” and “God offers forgiveness for all, regardless of who he is.” Attempting to extrapolate further leads to error, IMHO.

But a similar point could be made since Jonah explicitly said Nineveh had a 40-day timeframe. A few weeks after that would suffice for the later time-period

I think you’re reading it a little too literalistically. “40 days” is emblematic as a ‘time of trial.’ This was the Assyrians’ time to be tested. (They passed the test.)

if they died after that it would be unlikely that they would still have to be punished for the specific previous sins they did.

With eternal punishment? No. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

 

[Wesrock]

1) In that case, this would make example 1 more understandable since it’s an instance of partial forgiveness where the prison part of the debt is cancelled, but not the whole thing. The problem with this though is that this means God’s forgiveness is only partial or half-hearted, since He refuses to forgive us all of our debts - in contrast to Biblical descriptions where He is often portrayed forgiving all of our debt to Him (cf. Matt 18:21-25, as well as the case of Nineveh in Jonah cited in the introductory post)

Catholics don’t believe in just forgiveness, but in transformation as well. It’s God’s forgiveness by which we have the opportunity for that transformation, for the perfection of our nature. While there is a justice to the temporal punishment, it is also for our betterment. I likened Purgatory to discipline above, and it is corrective discipline that helps direct us to God and away from sin.

God doesn’t take us into Heaven dirt and all. If we show up to the gates with dirt on us (though he doesn’t turn us away). God is merciful enough to let us take a bath before entering paradise. For our own sake, making us whole and perfect.

 

[NormalBeliever]

In that case, as you mention, the temporal punishment isn’t a payment of debt strictly speaking - rather it’s akin to a moral necessity of being pure and clean. Both for God and our own good - since God can tolerate us sinners easily, whilst we humans need to be sin-free if we are ever to have complete stability.

 

[po18guy]

It is not one OR the other. It is both-and. We know from the scriptures (Rev 21:27) that nothing impure enters the Kingdom. You can be forgiven - as many murders are, but still unrepentant. One’s heart must be pure to enter heaven after justice is served. Attachment to sin must be purged from the soul.

The entire purgatory debate came about when a certain reformer decided that we are saved because we have faith that we are saved. Aside from being circular, it is inconsistent with anything which went before.

Rather than reformation, it amounted to innovation.

 

[Cathoholic]

since the Ninevites’ penance didn’t pay the whole debt

Actually none of us can pay the debt on our own.

Jesus pays the eternal price and
We pay the temporal aspect not alone, but UNITED with Jesus.

That is part of WHY all those who die and go to Heaven via Purgatory, do so in a state of grace.

We need to be coupled to Christ.

We need to die in a state of friendship with Jesus.

CCC 1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:598

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599

Bold mine.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Regarding extrapolation - some things have natural implications that are perfectly reasonable to derive, while others don’t. It’s all about whether or not the implications are soundly deduced. In the Nineveh case the main message is that God offers forgiveness, but logically this also means there is something to forgive. And in this case it’s a temporal punishment. That’s a simply and easy deduction to make.

Regarding literalism - ancient people didn’t think of things in either/or terms like this. In many cases, a function or principle would be illustrated with a concrete example to drive the point home clearly. That’s why God used physical signs to exemplify his loyalty to the Jews, and why Jesus actually fasted for 40 days in the desert - the number 40 does have symbolic significance by itself, but it was also lived out concretely as an example.

And either way, at some point it would become clear to everyone that God wouldn’t punish the Ninevites, so so time period after that could be established with their deaths being unrelated to God’s punishment for prior bad actions.

Regarding eternal punishment - well the point is that if they died later it is unlikely the Ninevites would be punished with temporal punishment for their previously repented of sins. They wouldn’t have to continue their punishment for previous sins in the afterlife because God cancelled the punishment due to their repentance.

 

[NormalBeliever]

One more example came to mind to illustrate the problem with your response. Here’s a conversation that sometimes does happen in real life:

Cranky old neighbor: “You broke my window!”

Kid: “Sorry, okay. I’ll pay for and repair it.”

Cranky old neighbor: “Well you better, you young hooligan!” goes back into house

As you can see, the word forgiveness isn’t uttered a single time here. Because it’s more accurate to call this allowing. Or wanting. The old neighbor neither offers nor grants forgiveness, he just expects the kid to pay or repair for the window. He allows the kid to pay or repair - or even more accurately he really really wants and expects the kid to pay or repair for his window.

Most people would not call this forgiveness - they call it paying up or expecting justice, or fulfilling your obligations. There is no opening dialogue with the kid to offer him forgiveness.

So HOW exactly does forgiveness change the kid’s state with the neighbor then? When you use the word forgiveness, do you mean that it is the neighbor allowing the kid to pay the debt? But that’s nonsense - the neighbor cannot refuse the kid’s desire to pay because that would EITHER be unjust since it leaves the debt unpaid when it can be paid, OR unjust because the neighbor is cutting the kid off from him AS IF he were unrepentant even though he is NOT, OR it would be morally legitimate because the neighbor is cancelling the kid’s debt altogether.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Exactly the same conversation can be had if the kid lived in the neighbor’s house.

And staying in the house is conditional on repentance - if the kid refuses to stop and continues damaging the house, the neighbor can throw him out. If the kid repents, then throwing him out is EITHER a payment of the debt which the kid already wants and so is SEPARATE from forgiveness OR unjust because it treats the kid as if he were unrepentant which is wrong.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Again, the objections are to the particular example used as an analogy, which is likely imprecise so it’s imperfect. The kid would be thrown out EITHER because a neverending debt is being payed, OR because the kid was unrepentant and so the only thing to do was to cast him out. If the kid repented and decided to pay the debt, then it isn’t forgiveness to act in accordance with the reality that the kid isn’t unrepentant.

The rest of what you said does make more sense & solves the previous issue, and it then faces the final problem I mentioned in previous comments - a part of the debt would be forgiven, but another part wouldn’t. Which would make God’s forgiveness partial - which seems inconsistent with how forgiveness is described in the Gospels as a complete cancelling of the entire debt someone owes to you.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I’m not sure how you get that from the Creation story.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So shouldn’t you be saying Adam couldn’t go back in the garden? The account of the Fall has him blaming Eve and God indirectly. He was unrepentant at that point.

 

[Gorgias]

In the Nineveh case the main message is that God offers forgiveness, but logically this also means there is something to forgive. And in this case it’s a temporal punishment. That’s a simply and easy deduction to make.

Except that it’s the wrong deduction, since it doesn’t take into account the primary intended audience and how they would have understood the story.

“Temporal punishment” is all that the intended audience would have understood as how God punishes (or rewards, for that matter). There was no understanding at that time of “eternal bliss in heaven” or “eternal punishment in hell.” So, to “deduce” that “temporal punishment in the story implies the same thing that ‘the temporal punishment due to sin’ that the Church talks about” is explicitly a false conclusion.

And either way, at some point it would become clear to everyone that God wouldn’t punish the Ninevites, so so time period after that could be established with their deaths being unrelated to God’s punishment for prior bad actions.

OK, fair enough: their (later) deaths would be interpreted as “God’s punishment for (later) bad actions.” Not seeing how this proves your case, though. Again: they had no idea about heaven, so the notion of a distinction between “eternal punishment” and “temporal punishment” just wouldn’t make sense in the context of this account.

Regarding eternal punishment - well the point is that if they died later it is unlikely the Ninevites would be punished with temporal punishment for their previously repented of sins. They wouldn’t have to continue their punishment for previous sins in the afterlife because God cancelled the punishment due to their repentance.

More bad reasoning, I’m afraid. Look: the original audience for this account would have interpreted the “cancelling” as the “cancelling of God’s punishment”, without the nuance of “eternal” or “temporal”. Therefore, it’s illogical to suggest that we can impose a different framework on the narrative, without doing damage to the lessons it’s attempting to teach.

At best, we can look at the story and say, “well, their immediate punishment was taken away by God; if we understand this action in light of later understandings of God, then we might say that there was ‘forgiveness’ of a sort (although… there really wasn’t forgiveness, properly speaking – St Paul mentions that not even the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law brought forgiveness!).”

We might also note that the whole “sackcloth / ashes / fasting” is itself penance, which is something that we continue to do in order to provide satisfaction for our sins. However, in the same way that the “three Hail Marys” that we say after confession don’t necessarily remove all the “temporal punishment due to sin”, neither would it follow that the Ninevites’ actions completely wiped out their requirement for reparation, either.

 

[NormalBeliever]

And what exactly would it mean for the kid to NOT be forgiven? If the kid WANTS to pay the debt, then the only reason to send him to jail is as a way of PAYING IT, which the kid already wants. The very reason the kid would be thrown out or into jail is as a way of doing justice by paying the debt - everlasting or not.

Sin by it’s very nature is damaging, otherwise it wouldn’t be sin since it wouldn’t violate anything, so sin itself is a violation, and a violation is a debt.

What you say regarding forgiveness wiping out the initial offence does make sense, and it only faces the final problem - it would make God’s forgiveness partial since He doesn’t forgive the entire debt.

You first have to be forgiven, then you pay the debt off for the damage, then you get into the house

Again, as I said before, this seems to violate definitions of forgiveness in the Bible as a complete cancellation of debt as such:

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. At this the servant fell on his knees before him. “Be patient with me,” he begged, “and I will pay back everything.” The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.* - Matthew 18: 23-27

Forgiveness here isn’t described as something separate from debt, but as the cancellation of it in the first place.