Purgatory and Indulgences

[steve99]

Purgatory and Indulgences I have read many of the threads concerning Purgatory and Indulgences, and also the Catholic Answers tracts about these, but I still have a problem understanding something. So I apologise for raising this topic area yet again and hope that someone can explain this to me.

  Firstly Purgatory. The CCC explains Purgatory on paras 1030-1032, and the idea that we need purifying before entering heaven makes sense (not that making sense necessarily means that it is true). I can understand that if we leave this life still clinging to some hate, unforgiveness, lust, pride etc. we still have need of repentance and cleansing before we *“achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”*  The Catechism also gives supporting evidence from scripture for cleansing fire – 1Cor 3:15, 1Pt 1:7.

  And that basically is all the Catechism says about Purgatory, until in para 1471, on the section on indulgences, when like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it produces another reason for Purgatory – that of punishment for sin. Now it offers no scriptural evidence for this, and indeed scripture would seem to deny it. for Jesus paid the price for our sins when he died on the cross.,

  *But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed*. (Is 53:5)

….since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (Rom 3:23-25) Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17)

**For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God (1Pt 3:18) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:1-2)

  *In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.* (1Jn 4:10)

 the *Collins Concise Dictionary* says

Atone: to make amends or reparation (for a crime, sin etc.)

Atonement: satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong

  The Catechism then goes on the pull another rabbit out of the hat by declaring that punishment comes in two varieties, eternal and temporal. ‘Eternal punishment’ and ‘temporal punishment’ are given in quotes but no amplification on where these terms come from. It then goes on to say that *“The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of eternal punishment , but temporal punishment of sin remains.”* (1473). No justification is given for this statement. The justification for this given in Catholic Answers *Primer on Indulgences *is the sin of David (2 Sam 12:13-14) and others references, but all of them from the OT *before* Jesus had paid the price on the cross.

  The other example given in *Primer on Indulgence* is death. *When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected.*

  But death is not a *punishment* for sin, it is a *consequence* of sin. In fact some say it is God’s mercy. If there were no death, the *consequences* of sin in terms of sickness and disease would make living for ever unbearable. *On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the ‘sin of the world’, **of which illness is only a consequence***. (CCC 1505)

  The concept the we have to suffer ‘temporal punishment’, that Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins for on the cross, seems to contradict scripture and to be introduced solely to justify the doctrine of indulgences.

 

[YinYangMom]

That one cannot find scriptural references for some teachings of the church is not a reason to distrust the teachings since scripture came from the traditions of the apostles and apostolic fathers.

The thing to keep in the back of your mind when it comes to teachings of the Catholic Church is Pentecost. Read and reflect upon John 16. Verse 8 shows that Jesus himself said the Spirit will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement. Verses 13-15 shows Jesus assuring the apostles that the Spirit He will send to them will guide them into all truth.

Since Pentecost the Apostles, and the Catholic Church established through them, have preserved, protected and promulgated these very same truths revealed to them on that day. This is why they were able to discern **which **writings would be collected and bound to become the Bible. The revelation of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and Tradition from them passed down through the heirarchy of the Church became the reference point by which these writings could be measured.

If one can trust the Bible, which the Holy Spirit guided the Church in establishing, then there is no reason to no longer trust that same Holy Spirit continues to guide and protect the teachings of Christ through the Apostles and the Catholic Church Jesus established through them.

Over the years, as certain teachings faced heresy and schism councils were called to reaffirm the truth of the challenged teachings. Along the way, the Church has evolved in her understanding of some of these very truths. No teaching is ever contradicted, though many ‘change’, so to speak, to reflect the deeper understanding of it.

This is the case with purgatory and indulgences. The currect CCC reflects the Church’s evolved understanding of the concepts, but the source of the concepts themselves stem from the Holy Spirit and traditions established/understood by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.

 

[adnauseum]

Even protestants admit that according to Rev 21:27 no one can enter heaven except one who is truly and actually holy.

Not imputed righteousness as in justification during this life, not having one’s sins covered, but actual transformation to holiness. Again, protestants admit this much.

Where we disagree is the nature of purification before attaining heaven.

Catholics believe that our salvation occurs in a process of purification from our attachments to sin, which we call Purgatory. Protestants seem to believe the process is instantaneous so they give it no name.

 

[Todd_Easton]

steve99:

It then goes on to say that “The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of eternal punishment , but temporal punishment of sin remains.” (1473).

The quoted statement from 1473 of the Catechism refers to the sacrament of Confession only. In the sacrament of Confession, the eternal punishment of a sin committed by a Christian after baptsim is forgiven but the temporal punishment of the sin remains because the sacrament of Confession is only a partial participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

On the other hand, in the sacrament of Baptism both the eternal punishment and the temporal punishment of sins are forgiven. This is because the sacrament of Baptism is a full participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

Paragraph 1472 of the Catechism uses the word punishment in the sense of *consequence. *If you look closely, you will see that “eternal punishment” and “temporal punishment” are the *"*double consequence" of sin and refers to the breaking of communion with God which makes us incapable of eternal life and the establishment of an unhealthy attachement to His creatures. Although the use of the word punishment is traditional, it is a little misleading in this context. The Catechism tries to clarify this by saying, “These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

 

[awalt]

You probably believe in the concept of the Trinity as a Christian, and that is not in the Scriptures either. So assuming we may or may not be able to agree on the fact that even the Bible says that the Word of God should be spread by word and by written form, let’s just think about common sense examples - as much of what we believe to be common sense came from God.

Our concepts of family came from God - father, son, mother, etc. When a son commits a sin against his parents, and asks for forgiveness, his parents, loving him, forgive him. They ask him if he is sorry, that’s an important part of the act of contrition, and if the son does not say they are sorry, the issue is probably still an open one - the son is probably not completely forgiven.

But let’s assume the sons says he is sorry, and will try not to do it again. Now, there is a temporal punishment to be given out. It could be “We forgive you and we love you, but you have to stay home this Friday night as punishment”. Or, “We forgive you, but you have to clean up your sister’s room that you tore apart as punishment.” That’s temporal punishment. The son is absolutely forgiven already, but there is a debt to be repaid.

We learn this from God, is is part of His revelation to us. Temporal punishment also includes the fact that we really continue to value love of self over love of God and neighbor, and that cannot exist in heaven, and so there is an act that has to occur to change us before we go to heaven. Now, we don’t really know what “partial and plenary” really mean quantifiably, so someone could think they have paid for all their sins when they have not - only God knows.

The concept seems to make full sense. If you perceive it to mean someone can murder and do all sorts of mortal sins and get off completely by going to confession AND saying the Bible for a half an hour to get a plenary indulgence, well (1) Only God knows and judges, and that will be based on what is truly in your heart, and (2) the indulgence will only occur if the person has transitioned to be truly rejecting all sin and that is very hard to do.

So IMHO it’s a concept based on our core, heartfelt values learned from God, revealed to us and passed down through Tradition, and it makes total sense. Any thought that God just forgives everything no matter how continuously nasty we are is likely mistaken - and there is Scriptural backup for that (notice David was punished even though he was forgiven, as was Moses).

 

[kleary]

steve99:

The concept the we have to suffer ‘temporal punishment’, that Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins for on the cross, seems to contradict scripture and to be introduced solely to justify the doctrine of indulgences.

No. The fact that we have to pay the “temporal punishment” due to sin is justice. It is even spoken of clearly in the Scriptures - (1 Cor 3:15) that our bad works will have us being purged as if through fire.

This teaching does not teach that Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins on the Cross. He did. That is why people in Purgatory are “saved” already. It would be something different if they were not.

Ken

 

[StCsDavid]

steve99:

And that basically is all the Catechism says about Purgatory, until in para 1471, on the section on indulgences, when like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it produces another reason for Purgatory – that of punishment for sin. Now it offers no scriptural evidence for this

I would encourage you to read this document that this particular part of 1471 was founded on. It’s supported by sacred scripture, sacred tradition, and the authority of the Church. No bunnies being pulled out of hats here my friend.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

 

[steve99]

Todd Easton:

The quoted statement from 1473 of the Catechism refers to the sacrament of Confession only. In the sacrament of Confession, the eternal punishment of a sin committed by a Christian after baptsim is forgiven but the temporal punishment of the sin remains because the sacrament of Confession is only a partial participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

On the other hand, in the sacrament of Baptism both the eternal punishment and the temporal punishment of sins are forgiven. This is because the sacrament of Baptism is a full participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

Pleas can you point me to the section in the Catechism that says this as I can’t find it.
Todd Easton:

Paragraph 1472 of the Catechism uses the word punishment in the sense of *consequence. *If you look closely, you will see that “eternal punishment” and “temporal punishment” are the *"*double consequence" of sin and refers to the breaking of communion with God which makes us incapable of eternal life and the establishment of an unhealthy attachement to His creatures. Although the use of the word punishment is traditional, it is a little misleading in this context. The Catechism tries to clarify this by saying, “These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

There are two types of consequence:
If I pull out a gun and shoot you you through the heart you will die. That is a consequence - cause and effect. That is the type of consequence that death is. It is the direct result, cause and effect,of sin,.
On the other hand, as the Catholic Answers tract Primer on Indulgences put it I incur a liability for punishment on account of killing you. Yes, it is a type of consequence but it is still punishment.
To quote from Awalt’s post

awalt:

Our concepts of family came from God - father, son, mother, etc. When a son commits a sin against his parents, and asks for forgiveness, his parents, loving him, forgive him. They ask him if he is sorry, that’s an important part of the act of contrition, and if the son does not say they are sorry, the issue is probably still an open one - the son is probably not completely forgiven.

But let’s assume the sons says he is sorry, and will try not to do it again. Now, there is a temporal punishment to be given out. It could be “We forgive you and we love you, but you have to stay home this Friday night as punishment”. Or, “We forgive you, but you have to clean up your sister’s room that you tore apart as punishment.” That’s temporal punishment. The son is absolutely forgiven already, but there is a debt to be repaid.

Yes there is a punishment to be paid, justice demands it. But as I indivcated in my original post, scripture seems to be saying that Jesus paid the punishment on my behalf…
To take Awalts example above it’s like the kids older brother stepping forward and saying I’ll clean up the room for him.

Please note that I am not querying the need for purification. from *unhealthy attachments to creatures, *as these are the causes of sin and will keep me unfit for heaven until I let go of them. To take the analogy with crime a little further, it is greed and covetousness that will lead me to steal. For that stealing I should be punished, but that is separate from, and doesn’t deal with, the original greed and covetousness

 

[awalt]

Yes there is a punishment to be paid, justice demands it. But as I indicated in my original post, scripture seems to be saying that Jesus paid the punishment on my behalf…
To take Awalts example above it’s like the kids older brother stepping forward and saying I’ll clean up the room for him.

The Bible says we are FORGIVEN because of Jesus’ death on the cross - it says nothing about temporal punishment:

28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the **forgiveness **of sins. (Mt 26:28).

God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and **forgiveness **of sins. (Ac 5:31).

In him we have redemption through his blood, the **forgiveness **of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us. (Eph 1:7).

He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the **forgiveness **of sins. (Col 1:13).

there are more examples…have you read these?
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

 

[steve99]

awalt:

The Bible says we are FORGIVEN because of Jesus’ death on the cross - it says nothing about temporal punishment:

28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the **forgiveness **of sins. (Mt 26:28).

God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and **forgiveness **of sins. (Ac 5:31).

In him we have redemption through his blood, the **forgiveness **of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us. (Eph 1:7).

He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the **forgiveness **of sins. (Col 1:13).

awalt:

there are more examples…have you read these?
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

Yes I have, but what about these?
But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (Is 53:5)

….since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (Rom 3:23-25)

Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17)

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God (1Pt 3:18) *

But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.* (1John 2:1-2)

   *In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the **atoning sacrifice** for our sins.* (1Jn 4:10)

Can you justify this split between eternal and temporal punishment? Neat division, but on what basis?

awalt:

The Bible says we are FORGIVEN because of Jesus’ death on the cross - it says nothing about temporal punishment:

Where does the Bible talk about temporal punishment as opposed to eternal punishment?

 

[YinYangMom]

Maybe I’m being too simplistic but it appears to me the common denominator of all the scriptures cited so far is that Christ’s death opened the gates of heaven for all mankind. The gates which had been closed since the Fall.

That, I see, was the ‘once and for all’ result of his death and it seems all these other wordings, “punishment”, “atonement”, “sacrifice”, “forgiveness” all point to that same one redeeming act of opening the gates. While the words are important to understand in and of themselves and within the contexts of which they are used, in the end the bottom line seems to be “Heaven is now attainable for all souls, past, present and future”.

The thing is, scripture does still hold that only the pure can pass through those gates. The gates are open (through His death and Resurrection), but our souls are not automatically ready to pass through upon death (thus our need for purgatory and indulgences)

 

[Redbandito]

steve99:

Can you justify this split between eternal and temporal punishment? Neat division, but on what basis?

Where does the Bible talk about temporal punishment as opposed to eternal punishment?

Look at Moses. Moses’ temporal consequence for striking the rock twice was what? He didn’t see the promised land in his lifetime. However, we know that Moses is in Heaven for he appeared to Jesus in the transfiguration. Thus, there was temporal punishment, but not eternal.

 

[jimmy]

Purgatory and Indulgences I have read many of the threads concerning Purgatory and Indulgences, and also the Catholic Answers tracts about these, but I still have a problem understanding something. So I apologise for raising this topic area yet again and hope that someone can explain this to me.

Firstly Purgatory. The CCC explains Purgatory on paras 1030-1032, and the idea that we need purifying before entering heaven makes sense (not that making sense necessarily means that it is true). I can understand that if we leave this life still clinging to some hate, unforgiveness, lust, pride etc. we still have need of repentance and cleansing before we “achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” The Catechism also gives supporting evidence from scripture for cleansing fire – 1Cor 3:15, 1Pt 1:7.

And that basically is all the Catechism says about Purgatory, until in para 1471, on the section on indulgences, when like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it produces another reason for Purgatory – that of punishment for sin. Now it offers no scriptural evidence for this, and indeed scripture would seem to deny it. for Jesus paid the price for our sins when he died on the cross.,

But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (Is 53:5)

….since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (Rom 3:23-25) Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17)

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God (1Pt 3:18) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:1-2)

In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1Jn 4:10)

the Collins Concise Dictionary says

Atone: to make amends or reparation (for a crime, sin etc.)

Atonement: satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong

The Catechism then goes on the pull another rabbit out of the hat by declaring that punishment comes in two varieties, eternal and temporal. ‘Eternal punishment’ and ‘temporal punishment’ are given in quotes but no amplification on where these terms come from. It then goes on to say that “The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of eternal punishment , but temporal punishment of sin remains.” (1473). No justification is given for this statement. The justification for this given in Catholic Answers *Primer on Indulgences *is the sin of David (2 Sam 12:13-14) and others references, but all of them from the OT before Jesus had paid the price on the cross.

The other example given in Primer on Indulgence is death. When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected.

But death is not a punishment for sin, it is a consequence of sin. In fact some say it is God’s mercy. If there were no death, the consequences of sin in terms of sickness and disease would make living for ever unbearable. On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the ‘sin of the world’, of which illness is only a consequence. (CCC 1505)

The concept the we have to suffer ‘temporal punishment’, that Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins for on the cross, seems to contradict scripture and to be introduced solely to justify the doctrine of indulgences.

Purification and temporal punishment are intimately connected. Temporal punishment is simply due to our connection and attachment to sin. This punishment is given for the purpose of correction, or purification. Temporal punishment includes earthly pain and that in purgatory.

I think the problem is that you view punishment solely as a way to re-pay which can have problems. Punishment is not simply a legal thing, it is normally an act to cause change.

 

[kleary]

steve99:

Can you justify this split between eternal and temporal punishment? Neat division, but on what basis?

Where does the Bible talk about temporal punishment as opposed to eternal punishment?

To answer the second sentence first, as always, where in the Bible does it say that all revealed truth of God is contained in its pages. Look at the table of contents, tell me as we all will agree that the table of contents is not Scripture then you can take that second sentence and git rid of it. Because if the table of contents is not in the Bible, and is indeed Revealed Truth, then so can other things that the Church teaches.

The split between the punishment of the damned and the just are shown to you in my previous post.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Funny thing Steve is that in your last post you claim “Where in the Bible” as if the Bible is your sole source of faith.

Now Steve you identify yourself as Catholic. So why is it that you try to defeat the Catholic teaching by appealing the Sola Scriptura doctrine held by the Protestant Reformers? Such as “Where in Scripture does it teach this” so that if one cannot prove it from Scripture then the Catholic teaching is wrong.

Ken

 

[StCsDavid]

Steve what did you think of *INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA? Have you read it yet? I really do believe it will answer a lot of your concerns.
*

 

[tdandh26]

When you quote Is. what is being said is that Christ paid the price of the eternal punishment due to all men at the fall of Adam. As sin requires eternal separation from God, the price could only be paid by an eternal being, thus we have Christ. While He paid the price for that sin and through Baptism we are bought by Christ. We still have a fallen nature and are capable of sin, those sins which we commit throughout our lives, must be attoned for.
As far as the quote from Romans, this is a tactic of protestants mostly to try and take away from the truth of the Eucharist. But if you read it in the full context of the letter, a letter by the way which was written to dispel a heresy which had begun to be taught that we actually resacrifice Jesus each time, you will see that what its meaning was meant to be, dont pick a sentence out of scripture and use it as a stand alone, you must take it in sense of the whole of what is being presented. You are attempting to give it a meaning which it never was meant to have, which is why the magesterium of the Church is so important.

 

[steve99]

StCsDavid:

Steve what did you think of *INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA? Have you read it yet? I really do believe it will answer a lot of your concerns.
*

I read it some time ago, but not recently. I will do so again before responding any further on this thread, so it could be a few days before I come back again (if I still have any more questions).

kleary:

Funny thing Steve is that in your last post you claim “Where in the Bible” as if the Bible is your sole source of faith.

Now Steve you identify yourself as Catholic. So why is it that you try to defeat the Catholic teaching by appealing the Sola Scriptura doctrine held by the Protestant Reformers? Such as “Where in Scripture does it teach this” so that if one cannot prove it from Scripture then the Catholic teaching is wrong.

Ken

I take your point Ken, but I don’t mean to be Sola Scriptura. I would be quite happy with good support from Sacred Tradition.
As Indulgences are defined by the Council of Trent I have to accept them as valid, even though from my perspective the underlying argiuments seem like they are built on sand. However I’m sure the Bishops at Trent based their definistions on some solid arguments from Scripture or Sacred Tradition. It’s just that I have seen them yet.
So open the eyes of this blind person

 

[Todd_Easton]

Todd Easton:

The quoted statement from 1473 of the Catechism refers to the sacrament of Confession only. In the sacrament of Confession, the eternal punishment of a sin committed by a Christian after baptsim is forgiven but the temporal punishment of the sin remains because the sacrament of Confession is only a partial participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

On the other hand, in the sacrament of Baptism both the eternal punishment and the temporal punishment of sins are forgiven. This is because the sacrament of Baptism is a full participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary.

steve99:

Pleas can you point me to the section in the Catechism that says this as I can’t find it.

For reference, here’s paragraph 1473 of the Catechism again:

1. The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.

Paragraph 1473 is in the section of the Catechism on the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (1422-1498) so what it says must be understood in the context of that sacrament. When the Catechism says, “…temporal punishment of sin remains,” this is what it means when it says earlier in the same section on the Sacrament of Penance:1459. …sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationship with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more …

With respect to the Sacrament of Baptism and how it forgives the double consequence of sin (eternal punishment and temporal punishment), the Catechism says:

1. By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishments for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin…

The notion of full and partial participation in the Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary comes from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (86,4):

**Reply to Objection 3. **Christ’s Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ’s Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the Power of Christ’s Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ’s Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (84, 1,3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the guilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed.

 

[steve99]

Todd Easton:

The notion of full and partial participation in the Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary comes from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (86,4):**Reply to Objection 3. **Christ’s Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ’s Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the Power of Christ’s Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ’s Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (84, 1,3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the guilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed.

Thanks Todd,
I am not going to argue with the Angelic Doctor

Also thanks to StCsDavid, kleary awalt and others who have been setting me to rights. I shall bow out of this one with the words of Job:
“My words have been frivolus: what can I reply?
I had better lay my finger on my lips.
…
I have been holding forth on matters I cannot understand,
on marvels beyond me and my knowledge.”

Peace and blessings