Purgatory: Purification or Punishment?

[una_fides]

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent: (yes from the same Catholic Church from a catechism of at least equal authority as the 1983 catechism)

“Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,’ on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.”

The Dead: Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching. But on this subject we have said enough when explaining the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated.

I don’t see how one can even attempt to try to claim that just because the current CCC (which is written for a much broader and hostile audience in much vaguer and softer language) focuses more on the purification aspect of purgatory rather than the punishment, that therefore somehow there is no punishment or that purgatory has nothing to do with appeasing divine justice by suffering the temporal punishments due to the sins committed. The CCC also references the Council of Trent as formulating the doctrine, so OBVIOUSLY the Catechism of the Council of Trent is also part of that formulation and explanation as well.

Thistle, do you equally accept the authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent as much as the current CCC? And do you understand the importance of interpreting the current CCC in light of what the Church has always taught and in a way as she has always understood the teachings to mean?

 

[thistle]

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent: (yes from the same Catholic Church from a catechism of at least equal authority as the 1983 catechism)

I don’t see how one can even attempt to try to claim that just because the current CCC (which is written for a much broader and hostile audience in much vaguer and softer language) focuses more on the purification aspect of purgatory rather than the punishment, that therefore somehow there is no punishment or that purgatory has nothing to do with appeasing divine justice by suffering the temporal punishments due to the sins committed. The CCC also references the Council of Trent as formulating the doctrine, so OBVIOUSLY the Catechism of the Council of Trent is also part of that formulation and explanation as well.

Thistle, do you equally accept the authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent as much as the current CCC? And do you understand the importance of interpreting the current CCC in light of what the Church has always taught and in a way as she has always understood the teachings to mean?

The CCC is the official universal Catechism of the Church and that is the Catechism I accept over all others. The CCC has taken into account Scripture, Trent and Florence and so the statements given in the CCC are what we have to accept. I don’t have to try to interpret it. Its a clear, unambiguous statement. When the Church states its teaching in the CCC saying “this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.”, that is what I accept.
I am not saying Purgatory is not a form of punishment. What I have been maintaining all along and which is in line with Church teaching is that it is totally unlike the punishment of those in Hell.
My disagreement is with those who are basically claiming the two punishments are similar. They are not.

 

[una_fides]

The CCC is the official universal Catechism of the Church and that is the Catechism I accept over all others.

Do you believe that given the advancement of knowledge in the Church that a dogma can be understood in a different sense than it has been understood by the Church in the past?

I am not saying Purgatory is not a form of punishment. What I have been maintaining all along and which is in line with Church teaching is that it is totally unlike the punishment of those in Hell.
My disagreement is with those who are basically claiming the two punishments are similar. They are not.

I agree that the two states are entirely different as you and I have discussed on here before, but again, not in every sense different. The Church has used the same word FIRE to describe both punishments and the difference in fires is the effect on the soul, as we have established from earlier posts. Here is an earlier post that explains that they are not entirely different in every possible aspect: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4500281&postcount=122

 

[thistle]

Do you believe that given the advancement of knowledge in the Church that a dogma can be understood in a different sense than it has been understood by the Church in the past?

I agree that the two states are entirely different as you and I have discussed on here before, but again, not in every sense different. The Church has used the same word FIRE to describe both punishments and the difference in fires is the effect on the soul, as we have established from earlier posts. Here is an earlier post that explains that they are not entirely different in every possible aspect: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4500281&postcount=122

I believe that a dogma can be explained better or more fully as time passes. That would mean the Church today can have a better understanding of a dogma than in the past without changing the dogma, i.e. that there IS Purgatory.

 

[una_fides]

CCC 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

Let’s look at what exactly this passage is saying is “entirely different” and how we can interpret it. From your posts it seems clear that you interpret this passage to mean that every aspect of the punishment of purgatory is entirely different than every aspect of the punishment of hell. However, the text does not say that. The text says that the final purification is entirely different from the punishment of the damned, i.e. hell. Of course they are entirely different, as they both are for entirely different durations and produce entirely different results. The fire in purgatory cleanses the soul from the effects of sin; whereas, the fire in hell is merely a punishment without an effect. The Church has authoritatively said, however, that both involve fire, both involve punishment, both involve the deprivation of the beatific vision, and in both states souls actually suffer both a pain of sense and a pain of loss. They are entirely different punishments in their effects but not in every aspect.

It is essential that we be careful, especially when reading non-infallible documents, that we do not take the same approach that fundamentalists do with inerrant Scriptures when they take one verse out of the fullness of its context in order to support their proposition. For example, a fundamentalist will take the verse in Romans that says that “all have sinned” and then will apply that to the blessed Virgin Mary. We know from other Church teachings by understanding and interpreting one teaching in light of the rest of the Church’s tradition that the blessed Virgin was free from sin from the moment of her conception. Thus, we must therefore understand that verse in Romans to be a generalization and not an absolute statement. Same thing applies in the way we understand this non-infallible statement in the CCC. It is not an absolute statement addressing every possible aspect, but it’s a generalization as to the natures of the two states being entirely different.

 

[una_fides]

I believe that a dogma can be explained better or more fully as time passes. That would mean the Church today can have a better understanding of a dogma than in the past without changing the dogma, i.e. that there IS Purgatory.

Thanks. I agree with your statement. My question is a little more specific. Do you think dogmas can be understood in a different sense given such advancement in knowledge and understanding?

 

[mnealon1]

HI Una Fides thank you for you kind comments. Sorry in being so long in getting back to you.
What I meant by being “Already Saved” is that Jesus was sent by the Father to be Crusified and die on the Cross and rise again on the third day, for our Salvation. In the doing of this he defeated the evil one, gave us the forgiviness of sin and opened the gates of Heaven for us.
Because of His Cross and Passion He has redeemed the world. i.e. " Saved us".
Of coure we have to remember that although Jesus " Saved Us" it does not mean free passage to Heaven He also gave us the commandmends. We still have free will to sin over and over again, but he gave His apostles the power to forgive ours sins." Those whose sins you shall forgive will be forgiven, those whose sins you retain shall be retained " This was 2000 years ago and will never change ( the power given to our Priests in Confession) . It is a great comfort and joy and only God who loves us so much and sent His only Son could do this for us. .Jesus said " I came to save sinners not the righteous"
This then brings us right round in a circle to purgatory and what I tried to say in my first thread.
This is the great result of His Passion. Of course the Greatest gift of all is the Blessed Eucharist to recieve His Body and Blood that very sacrifice of the Cross, and Passion. God Bless
How wonderful are the ways of God !

 

[mnealon1]

HI again Una Fides. On reading over my thread I said we have a free will to sin over and over again. To that of course I should and said " a free will to sin over and over again OR NOT Choose darkness or light. Left it too late to edit! Cheers