Purgatory: Purification or Punishment?

[steve99]

Christ paid the eternal punishment for those sins, but we are still left to “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” That is to pay for the temporal punishments due to sins and thereby be purified.

What is lacking in the sufferings of Christ? Are you saying that Christ’s suffering and death was not enough to atone for our sins?

 

[steve99]

Is the “punishment” of purgatory a side effect of the purification, that is - a pain suffered by being purified or is it a punishment for punishments sake?

It still comes back to are we being punished or just painfully purified?

And if we are being punished what exactly are we being punished for since Christ took the punishment for sin?

Please don’t just quote Thomas Aquinas, put it in simple words that even I can understand.

 

[chris_molter]

What is lacking in the sufferings of Christ? Are you saying that Christ’s suffering and death was not enough to atone for our sins?

Does Christ’s suffering on the cross get you a new car when it’s totalled in a wreck? No. Did it pay for the lady across the street’s broken window when I hit a baseball through it when I was 12? No.

We still have to pay, temporally, for our own sins. Christ paid our eternal penalty to God. Or do you not think evil should ever be punished here on earth since Christ paid for us on the cross?

 

[steve99]

Does Christ’s suffering on the cross get you a new car when it’s totalled in a wreck? No. Did it pay for the lady across the street’s broken window when I hit a baseball through it when I was 12? No.

We still have to pay, temporally, for our own sins. Christ paid our eternal penalty to God. Or do you not think evil should ever be punished here on earth since Christ paid for us on the cross?

So its not punishment for sin then.

Are you saying its ounishment for the restitution we did not make to others? God punishes us for not making restitution every time we offended someone in any way?

WOW that’s a lot of punishment to come for me!

Where’s the “get out of jail free” card?

 

[steve_b]

Is the “punishment” of purgatory a side effect of the purification, that is - a pain suffered by being purified or is it a punishment for punishments sake?

It still comes back to are we being punished or just painfully purified?

And if we are being punished what exactly are we being punished for since Christ took the punishment for sin?

Please don’t just quote Thomas Aquinas, put it in simple words that even I can understand.

Are you saying suffering is possible but NOT punishment since Christ was punished for us?

Would you do me a favor and comment on the following. I’d be interested in your views

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4485329&postcount=77

 

[chris_molter]

So its not punishment for sin then.

It certainly is punishment for sin, but there are two kinds of punishment just as there are two offenses when we sin: eternal (the offense we give God) and temporal (the offense to our neighbors and ourselves).

Are you saying its ounishment for the restitution we did not make to others? God punishes us for not making restitution every time we offended someone in any way?

Someone whose soul was perfectly purified and in line with God would be so wounded and upset by his own sins that he would spare no time or effort to make up for the temporal consequences of his sin. (by comforting those he’s harmed, making restitution, begging forgiveness, etc). Until that was done, that soul would be wracked by guilt and unable to bear the light of God’s presence.

We should not seek to avoid these temporal punishments. We should seek to right the wrongs we create through our sinfulness.

WOW that’s a lot of punishment to come for me!

heh… you and me both, buddy!

Where’s the “get out of jail free” card?

Why do you want to “get out of jail free”? You already have the “get out of jail free” card (the REAL jail, aka hell) by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice. All you have left to do is pay restitution to your neighbors (and yourself).

 

[brownjt]

Good question. The answer is too lengthy to post here so here is the link: newadvent.org/summa/5070.htm#article3

From what I gather, just as the soul is confined within the physical body (and staying alive is simply keeping together the body and the soul), the soul can be confined to corporal flames and by seeing the fire as a painful suffering it is tortured in the fire, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the gravity of the offenses for which it is suffering.
We must also realize that we are dealing with spiritual states and such is beyond the realm of our complete human knowledge or understanding. Thus, we can only accept what we know by divine revelation entrusted in Scripture and Tradition and can build upon such, but we should not take liberty to explain away Scripture or make it mean something different than what the text says or implies. Good exegesis relies on taking Scripture for what it communicates of itself and interpreting it with other Scriptures within the context of sacred Tradition. Thus, I feel very uncomfortable interpreting “fire” to mean something different than “fire” unless the text itself implies otherwise. I understand arguments can be made either way, but then again I personally resort to tradition and am most inclined to Thomism.

True. Can we describe the color “blue” to a blind person who has never seen it? Can we describe the color “red” to a blind person who have never seen it? Only - maybe - close enough in senses that he has experienced - touch and smell and hearing.

Blue is a soft color which is full of life (the sea and the sky) - it is soothing and cool to the touch and washes you and cleans you (like water). But it is the hottest and cleanest part of the flame. Being burnt by the “blue” flame " is so hot it is painless. But it does its task quickly. “Red” is a hard color and touch to the touch. It burns slow and hot and is very painful. It destroys and infects.

I will the “blue” to purgation and “red” to damnation. Just my guess, but if God says it is a flame of sorts then I will accept that.

 

[brownjt]

Does Christ’s suffering on the cross get you a new car when it’s totalled in a wreck? No. Did it pay for the lady across the street’s broken window when I hit a baseball through it when I was 12? No.

We still have to pay, temporally, for our own sins. Christ paid our eternal penalty to God. Or do you not think evil should ever be punished here on earth since Christ paid for us on the cross?

The damage has been done and the car is still wrecked. The consequences have been done and cannot be undone. Purgation does not replace what we have damaged. Christ took care of that for us. Some consequences are too great and too longstanding of our actions to be re-paid. Purgation cleanses the soul of the saved of the negative “detritus” of out sins and actions so we can unite with God in heaven. It removes the heaviness and the personal guilt and stain on our soul and lets us “float” to that final stage - clean and pure.

 

[brownjt]

Jimmy,

I suggest further research into the Church’s teachings on purgatory. Christ paid the eternal penalty for our sins and without that we could not attain eternal life. Nevertheless, we still must suffer for the temporal punishments due to sins that are already forgiven. That is what indulgences are all about. They remit the “temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven.” To deny the punishment actions of purgatory is to deny the Church’s teachings on indulgences, which were infallibly defined at the Council of Trent. Thus, if one truly accepts the Church’s teachings, he must also accept indulgences, which remit temporal punishments; otherwise, we are eating in the cafeteria. Sources and quotations available upon request.

Christ was our atonement. I do believe in purgation, but it is a purging a cleansing. Our sins have already been atoned for. I am amazed sometimes at the lack of imagination here - meaning, the sins you are forgiven. The effects remain. Therefore the cleansing. I guess when your mother said to take bath before you come to the tea party out of the raging storm - that was punishment. It was preparation. Faith makes believe in indulgences - show mw in scripture, though…

 

[brownjt]

I started another thread on this topic concerning the effect of remitting temporal punishments due to sins and whether a soul in purgatory must still be cleansed if his temporal punishments have been remitted: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4483877#post4483877

In the case of all these discussions, none of us will make to heaven the first time, except maybe those like the samaritan leper and the Roman centurion, who had great faith and humility and that knew none of us are worthy - no matter how much we try here - we do not deserve what Jesus has promised us.

 

[una_fides]

What is lacking in the sufferings of Christ? Are you saying that Christ’s suffering and death was not enough to atone for our sins?

I was hoping that someone would ask me about this.
Here is the Scripture verse from which I was quoting:
Colossians 1:24 “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”
This translation is Douay Rheims, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin word for “wanting” is “desunt”, which means to be lacking/wanting. Either way, same word meaning, and it’s the same meaning in the Greek as well.

This verse does not mean that Christ’s suffering were not complete or that they were not enough to atone for sins. In fact, Christ’s sufferings were infinitely sufficient to atone for all the sins of the world. Christ paid the eternal consequences of our sins for us, a feat that no human, other than He–the God-man–could perform.

What this verse does tell us is that we too can participate in his sufferings, when we take up our cross and suffer along with him. While Christ redeemed us in paying the consequences for our sins, he also wills that we suffer along with him to make amends for the temporal punishments that are due for our sins, just as a loving father disciplines his erring children for their own benefit–so that we may be made holy and actually share in his divinity. Notice it is only in the sense of temporal–not eternal–punishments that we can actually atone for sins. And this language of us atoning for sins properly understood is Scriptural as well:

Proverbs 16:16: “By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil.”

So we too can atone for sins (in a limited sense) when we participate in Christ’s sufferings, which are only wrought through and in Christ himself.

I recommend an amazing book by James Akin called “The Salvation Controversy.” He explains this and many other salvation related topics in a much better and more complete manner. catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-69.html

 

[thistle]

The CCC passage here is not defining a dogma, which is outside the nature of a catechism to do anyway. It is merely reiterating previous dogmas from the councils it references. In order to understand what is meant by “entirely different,” you must see how those councils explain the two states differently. The CCC does not expound or explain what it means by “entirely different.” I explained above how this idea can be understood in accordance with tradition as that is how the Church builds upon dogmas. Unless there is evidence otherwise from the councils of Florence or Trent that define purgatory in such a way as you are interpreting it, then you likely need to rethink your interpretation.

The same thing happens when we read Scripture. Often times we find a passage that fits with the way we perceive something and then interpret the passage to mean that when the passage itself may have never intended such. When you look at the CCC statement again you see that it says that purgatory is entirely different than hell. I agree, and I stated the ways it is entirely different. But would you go as far as to take that as an absolute statement that every single aspect of purgatory is entirely different? In purgatory and in hell, the Church has already established that part of the punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision and is fire. I have explained that these are both entirely different in that the deprivation is temporal verses eternal and the fire effects the souls differently. You are choosing to interpret the CCC passage further, however, than it needs to be as to ascribe the fires themselves as different matter, which the passage neither requires nor implies. Unless you can prove that the CCC is saying the fires are of different matter in every aspect, then I think the safest bet would be to stick with tradition. The CCC calls the fire a cleansing fire. That is the way the fires are different: in their effect because the fires in hell cannot have such an effect on those souls whereas the fires in purgatory do. Make sense?

I am unaware of where St. Thomas ever positively taught contrary to the Immaculate Conception. Please offer supporting evidence that he positively taught such or I ask you retract your allegation. Here is an article that argues the contrary:
the-pope.com/stThomas.html

Let me again restate the magisterial authority given to the writings of angelic doctor of the Church:
From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII:
“Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…” papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

The CCC contains ALL the teachings of the Church (doctrine and discipline) and everything in the CCC must be accepted by all Catholics. That means when the Church documents in the CCC (1031) that the final purification is “entirely different from the punishment of the damned” you must accept that as the truth.

As for Aquinas I quote his own words from the Catechetical Instructions of St Thomas Aquinas on the Virtues of the Blessed Virgin:

QUOTE:

Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it.

UNQUOTE

Obviously the Immaculate Conception in the time of Aquinas was not dogma so he was simply expressing his opinion. The Church later decreed the Immaculate Conception to be a dogma and I’m pretty sure that if Aquinas had been alive at that time he would have accepted the Church’s dogmatic declaration on it.

My point is that not everything the Church fathers expressed views on was or is Church teaching. Also as in the example of Pope Gregory the Great.

 

[steve99]

Are you saying suffering is possible but NOT punishment since Christ was punished for us?

I’m really trying to get this sorted in my mind so I’m more asking than saying…

Would you do me a favor and comment on the following. I’d be interested in your views

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4485329&postcount=77

I’ll come back on this later when I have more time to read through it. And there are several more posts I need to read through as well.

“I’LL BE BACK” !!!

 

[steve99]

Are you saying suffering is possible but NOT punishment since Christ was punished for us?

Would you do me a favor and comment on the following. I’d be interested in your views

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4485329&postcount=77

My first comment is on the passage from Hebrews. There is no indication that this is applicable after death. It could be taken, and indeed I would take it as discipline in this life. I can’t see the application of discipline in Purgatory.

You say “There is no scripture that says this action on the soul by God, ends at death and that this process does NOT continue.” On the other hand there is nothing to say it does. There is a discontinuity at death in that
1021Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.
If God’s disciple is concerned with us accepting or rejecting Christ then after death is too late.

The catechism also says:
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-or immediate and everlasting damnation.

There is no mention of punishment in connection with Purgatory just a purification.

 

[chris_molter]

The damage has been done and the car is still wrecked. The consequences have been done and cannot be undone. Purgation does not replace what we have damaged. Christ took care of that for us. Some consequences are too great and too longstanding of our actions to be re-paid. Purgation cleanses the soul of the saved of the negative “detritus” of out sins and actions so we can unite with God in heaven. It removes the heaviness and the personal guilt and stain on our soul and lets us “float” to that final stage - clean and pure.

I think you’re mixing metaphors here, but in essence, I agree with you.

However, I don’t agree that there is no punitive aspect to purgation. There must be, or God is unjust.

 

[steve_b]

My first comment is on the passage from Hebrews. There is no indication that this is applicable after death. It could be taken, and indeed I would take it as discipline in this life. I can’t see the application of discipline in Purgatory.

I don’t disagree with this regarding the letter to the Hebrews. The reason for including the 1 Corinthians passage, was to show the application continues in the future life, because the Greek words used are future tense when the “Day” comes for the soul.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4477543&postcount=41
s99:

You say “There is no scripture that says this action on the soul by God, ends at death and that this process does NOT continue.” On the other hand there is nothing to say it does. There is a discontinuity at death in that
1021Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.
If God’s disciple is concerned with us accepting or rejecting Christ then after death is too late.

The passage I used from 1 Corinthians assumes one has died as a friend of Christ. This is a soul who is already judged to be saved, they aren’t perfect based on how they died. And that “day” as Paul says, their life’s work is defined by fire. Did you notice the Greek words in that passage I highlighted? They indicate punishment AND purification.
s99:

The catechism also says:
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-or immediate and everlasting damnation.

There is no mention of punishment in connection with Purgatory just a purification.

I hope this helps you. The punishment is different, but it is still punishment along with purification.

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1498 (152 bytes ) preview document matches
8 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1498.htm 94%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

4:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1472 (838 bytes ) preview document matches
therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1472.htm 94%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

6:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1031 (721 bytes ) preview document matches
Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory

 

[steve99]

I started another thread on this topic concerning the effect of remitting temporal punishments due to sins and whether a soul in purgatory must still be cleansed if his temporal punishments have been remitted: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4483877#post4483877

That’s the thread I need.

Thanks for the link

 

[steve99]

Back in post #30 mardukm said:

Permit me to offer an Oriental Catholic perspective (I come from an Oriental Orthodox background).

Like Latins, Orientals often speak of the Divine Justice. Whenever we sin, we need to make reparation. But the reparation is not for the effect of our sin on the world, but for the effect of our sin on OURSELVES.

In Oriental Christianity (Catholic or Orthodox - btw, not to be confused with Eastern Christianity), all “punishment” is intended by God for the sake of holiness, as the book of Hebrews explicitly teaches us. “Punishment” is a means to holiness, and the two can never be separated in God’s purpose.

I think the problem that Orientals and Easterns have with the Latin concept is that Latins (at least in its language) seem to present God as some kind Being who exacts karma - an eye for an eye. I’ve heard of temporal punishment often being explained in terms of the broken window that needs to be repaired even though the owner has forgiven the act. This imagery, it seems to me, is inappropriate in trying to describe the real purpose of temporal punishment, as it places the focus on the act instead of the actor. Temporal punishment is meant to “repair” (hence, the term “reparation”) the PERSON who sins, not to “repair” the external damage done by the act. That the external damage done by the act is “repaired” is only a collateral effect of the real purpose behind temporal punishment - which, as already stated, is for the purpose of “repairing” the PERSON. But it does not seem like the popular anecdotes of Latin Catholicism accurately reflects this.

Perhaps we need to look at this punishment or purification in another way.

Mardukm was suggesting that any “punishment” that the Father gives us in more in the nature of discipline to change our ways - for holiness (as in purification).

So let me try an analogy and see what you think of this.

A man flies into a rage and beats his wife. He is arrested, tried and convicted.

The judge could offer two sentences

• A punishment entirely unrelated to the nature of the crime - for example a month in prison.
• A “punishment” intended to change the wrongdoer - e.g. an anger management course (which we could call purification).
  Does God act in purgatory more like 1 or 2 ?

 

[steve_b]

Back in post #30 mardukm said:

Perhaps we need to look at this punishment or purification in another way.

Mardukm was suggesting that any “punishment” that the Father gives us in more in the nature of discipline to change our ways - for holiness (as in purification).

So let me try an analogy and see what you think of this.

A man flies into a rage and beats his wife. He is arrested, tried and convicted.

The judge could offer two sentences

• A punishment entirely unrelated to the nature of the crime - for example a month in prison.
• A “punishment” intended to change the wrongdoer - e.g. an anger management course (which we could call purification).
  Does God act in purgatory more like 1 or 2 ?

Why do you say going to prison is unrelated to the nature of the crime? Especially if anger management is included?

 

[steve99]

Why do you say going to prison is unrelated to the nature of the crime? Especially if anger management is included?

OK so it didn’t work. I’ll bin it.