Purgatory: Purification or Punishment?

[steve99]

Just noticed this in the Catechism - see my emboldening.

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and 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 an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. 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. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It occurs to me that hell and Purgatory have a sort of parallel in the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians and Judea by the Babylonians. Israel was completely destroyed and the ten tribes eliminated as tribes. However, Judea was chastised and the tribes purified and then restored.

 

[una_fides]

The CCC contains ALL the teachings of the Church (doctrine and discipline) and everything in the CCC must be accepted by all Catholics.

I think you may have a slightly inflated perspective on the catechism. It does not contain every single teaching of the Catholic Church, but it is a compilation of the Church’s teachings that have been adapted to the present audience, which in this case consists of Catholics as well as the rest of the world. Previous catechisms were directed to a Catholic audience and communicated the faith in more precise language and in a slightly less watered down approach. That said, I still think the modern catechism is great, but it is not a perfect document by any means. As far as it’s authority, it is only part of the ordinary magisterium, and as such, it is NOT infallible, but it does contain many (NOT ALL) teachings that have been infallibly defined by previous councils. As part of the ordinary magisterium, it should be given religious assent, but it does not require our complete assent of faith and teaching within the catechism can be changed, modified, added, dropped, or even revoked without a problem, since again the catechism is NOT an infallible declaration. That said, I agree completely with the statement in the catechism that you cited; however, I disagree with your interpretation of that passage, as I have demonstrated in my previous post, and there is no conflict with understanding the fires as being the same matter but with entirely different effects on entirely different subjects in entirely different states in entirely different places. In my next post, I will demonstrate the problem with understanding “entirely different” as to applying to every single aspect of purgatory and hell.

 

[una_fides]

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.

The reason you assume I do not accept that they are entirely different is due to the fact that I, as the saints in the past, understand the fires to be the same in both places but with entirely different effects. The problem with your interpretation of the catechism passage is that you understand this complete difference between the two states to be referring to every aspect. However, the passage does not specify. Thus, we must logically see what it could be meaning by this statement.

If you take the passage to mean “in every possible aspect,” then if we even find one aspect that the Church has defined that both states share in common, then this rendering is impossible. That said, I have some questions for you to answer:

• Are the souls in both locations experiencing any form of punishment in any sense?
• Are the souls in both locations deprived of the beatific vision as a form of punishment?
• Are the souls in both locations being justly confined there?
• Are the souls in both locations entirely perfect yet?
• Do both locations involve the word “fire” as describing the punishment by the Church?
• Do both locations exist as a result of God’s divine justice?
  I could go on with many more questions that both locations share, but my point is that if you answer yes to any one of these questions, then it renders your interpretation unattainable since then the two locations would not be “entirely different” in every aspect. Even if one claims that the “punishments” themselves are entirely different, they both are still punishments and as such both states are sharing the fact that punishment is taking place and thus are not entirely different in that aspect.
  Because there are aspects which both states share in common, we must therefore understand the CCC passage to be meaning that they are entirely different in regards to the overall picture, but not as to every potential scenario, for as we have clearly seen from previous posts and as I shall demonstrate in my next post, the two states both involve punishment for sins. The difference is that one punishment purifies and the other does not.

 

[una_fides]

Infallible declaration from the Council of Trent (aka the place where the CCC states it derived its teachings concerning purgatory.)

“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.”

Here the Church urges us that both locations are to be avoided and that we are to beg of God that would not go to either place. The underlined words demonstrate that both locations involve punishment. We understand this punishment as resulting not from God’s independent choice, but from as a consequence of our own sins. The word “sentenced” is defined in Webster’s as:
“a: judgment; specifically : one formally pronounced by a court or judge in a criminal proceeding and specifying the punishment to be inflicted upon the convict b: the punishment so imposed.”
Though I am currently unable to locate the original Latin text from Trent to see the exact Latin word that was translated “sentenced,” the potential words that could have been used are all explicitly clear that they involve punishment for offense(s).
This fact, coupled with the numerous other explict references to the punishment aspect of purgatory already cited earlier in this post, make it binding on all Catholics to accept that purgatory is a state of punishment, in which the result is purification of the soul, which is “entirely different” from hell, where the soul is not in anyway purified from the fire.

And yes, Thistle, to borrow from your wording, ALL Catholics are bound to accept this teaching. However, they are bound to accept it as an infallible teaching of the Church de fide, and must positively give it a complete assent of faith (which must also be distinguished from the much lesser degree of “religious assent,” which is given to ordinary teachings of the magisterium). If one disagrees with an ordinary teaching of the magisterium, he is in a state of disobedience. If, on the other hand, one disagrees with an infallibly defined teaching of the faith (all of which the Church requires be given a complete assent of faith), then the Church holds that person in a much worse contempt, as to acknowledge anything different is not merely disobedience; it is heresy.

 

[una_fides]

Thistle,

Regarding your quote from Aquinas, I suggest reading this article I posted earlier if you haven’t already: the-pope.com/stThomas.html
For us to get into a further dialogue concerning Aquinas’s understanding of the immaculate conception goes beyond the scope of the topic of the thread. I do suggest, however, if you have not done extensive research on this specific topic, to postpone your judgments until you have, as there have been a great number of books written that explain Aquinas’s views on the subject that differ entirely from your understanding of that one isolated quote, and which also would put any such quotes in their proper context.
I also caution against any form of assault on Aquinas’ theology as according to popes Leo XIII and Innocent VI, to do so renders one as “always suspected of error.”
God bless.

 

[una_fides]

My point is that not everything the Church fathers expressed views on was or is Church teaching.

I agree that the fathers are not always correct as individuals and that they can also differ from one another from time to time in their teachings. Nevertheless, though the Church has infallibly said that purgatory and hell both involve “fire,” the Church has never authoritatively defined the actual fire in purgatory to be “entirely different” in every aspect than the fire in hell, and thus, one cannot demonstrate the the Latin fathers were in error on this point in understanding the fires to be the same substance but with different effects. I personally take the CCC passage as referring to the entirely different durations of sufferings as one is temporal and the other eternal and thus they are entirely different states.

The fires, which punish souls in both locations in different ways, for different durations, and for different purposes, are in my opinion and the opinions of the Latin fathers, the same corporeal fire. The CCC passage does not contradict such an understanding, and as such, Thistle, you should accept this as a valid position to be held, though you are free to disagree with it as your own private opinion. The Church has not defined whether the fires are the same or not or whether they are real physical fires or not, and thus, in forming our opinions, we should look to the fathers for theirs and formulate ours accordingly in the way we see best fits with revelation. I, as the other Latin fathers, am of the opinion that if Scripture and the Church calls it “fire” without using metaphorical language, then as such it should be understood to be fire. If one wants to take a more figurative approach, he is free to as long as it does not exceed teachings that have been authoritatively defined.

(Btw, I apologize so many subsequent posts. As you can tell, I had a lot on my mind. )

 

[SeanTom]

Una Fides,

Great posting. Read it all and found it to be right on target. Of course none of us will really know the full aspect /understanding of Purgatory until we are there ourselves. But what you said makes sense as far as we can determine at this point in our understanding of the CCC and Holy Scripture.

But, there is nothing more important that knowing that if we arrive in Purgatory, we will eventually enter God’s Kingdom. God will be with us all the way. This is all I really need to know. Of course we should always keep in mind that we should always gain as many indulgences as we can in this life (for the removal of either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin), which will assure us of a shorter time in Purgatory, according to CCC 1471.

Thanks for you lengthy, but interesting posting.

 

[thistle]

I think you may have a slightly inflated perspective on the catechism. It does not contain every single teaching of the Catholic Church, but it is a compilation of the Church’s teachings that have been adapted to the present audience, which in this case consists of Catholics as well as the rest of the world. Previous catechisms were directed to a Catholic audience and communicated the faith in more precise language and in a slightly less watered down approach. That said, I still think the modern catechism is great, but it is not a perfect document by any means. As far as it’s authority, it is only part of the ordinary magisterium, and as such, it is NOT infallible, but it does contain many (NOT ALL) teachings that have been infallibly defined by previous councils. As part of the ordinary magisterium, it should be given religious assent, but it does not require our complete assent of faith and teaching within the catechism can be changed, modified, added, dropped, or even revoked without a problem, since again the catechism is NOT an infallible declaration. That said, I agree completely with the statement in the catechism that you cited; however, I disagree with your interpretation of that passage, as I have demonstrated in my previous post, and there is no conflict with understanding the fires as being the same matter but with entirely different effects on entirely different subjects in entirely different states in entirely different places. In my next post, I will demonstrate the problem with understanding “entirely different” as to applying to every single aspect of purgatory and hell.

The CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (doctrine [whether infallible or not] plus disciplines) and we Catholics are obliged to accepted everything in the CCC.

Extract from John Paul II’s letter"

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom! "

I’m curious though. Please give us examples of Church teachings which are not in the CCC.

 

[thistle]

Thistle,

Regarding your quote from Aquinas, I suggest reading this article I posted earlier if you haven’t already: the-pope.com/stThomas.html
For us to get into a further dialogue concerning Aquinas’s understanding of the immaculate conception goes beyond the scope of the topic of the thread. I do suggest, however, if you have not done extensive research on this specific topic, to postpone your judgments until you have, as there have been a great number of books written that explain Aquinas’s views on the subject that differ entirely from your understanding of that one isolated quote, and which also would put any such quotes in their proper context.
I also caution against any form of assault on Aquinas’ theology as according to popes Leo XIII and Innocent VI, to do so renders one as “always suspected of error.”
God bless.

I did read the article and it didn’t help. It basically is saying that from all the books referred to in the article scholars still can’t agree on his position on Mary being conceived without original sin. It says some think Aquinas agreed she was not conceived in original sin while others think his position was that Mary was conceived in original sin while some think he believed in the immaculate conception but could not properly document it to make his view understood. In other words there is still a whole cross section of opinion, including yours.

Tell me then how do you explain the words of Aquinas in his Catechetical Instructions:

"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."

I’m eager to hear your explanation for Aquinas’ own words. How can they be construed as anything other than a rejection of the Immaculate Conception? What do these words mean?

 

[una_fides]

The CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (doctrine [whether infallible or not] plus disciplines) and we Catholics are obliged to accepted everything in the CCC.

Extract from John Paul II’s letter"

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion…”

I’m curious though. Please give us examples of Church teachings which are not in the CCC.

I’m afraid that we are again encountering an absolute interpretation to text that does not make such an assertion. The quote you cited above does not support your idea that the CCC contains all Church teachings. It simply says that it is* a statement of the Church’s faith and teachings. “I believe in one God” is a *statement of the Church’s faith and Catholic doctrine; however, it is not all the Church’s faith and doctrine though it very well may be the most general summary as the source of our faith.

The purpose of the CCC is a summation of normative teachings of the Church, but it was never intended to be somehow a compilation of all 2000 years of Church teaching.

I was going to cite examples in that post, but I had hoped I didn’t have to and that my last explanation would have been enough. There have been many general councils and there are very many canons from those councils. How many times does the CCC anathematize anyone for not holding to a particular dogma? Yet this is the teaching of the Church that unless a man believes x,y, and z, he is anathema (excommunicated, out of the Church and literally by definition of the word “accursed”). And then there are all the solemn papal declarations that have been made throughout history as well.

Here are a few quick examples of infallible (and therefore irreformable) teachings of the Church that I do not believe are present in the modern CCC:

Vatican I – Infallible declaration:
“3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

From the Council of Trent: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
[Concerning this one, the argument that will then be raised is whether Vatican II permitted the Mass solely in the vernacular. It did not make such a statement. It merely permitted that some prayers may be done in the vernacular (vulgar tongue), and it also demanded that the Latin language be preserved in the liturgy. But again, we are getting onto another topic of discussion here.]

I also recommend going through Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, and I’m sure you will find errors that were condemned there that are not referenced in the CCC. You will also find errors condemned in there that the CCC appears to contradict, but I don’t believe does as they must be interpreted in light of the Church’s tradition.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

If given more time, I could find lots of examples, and I’m sure others on here would be able to give examples as well, but I do not believe that this topic merits such further research on my part. If you would like to discuss this topic further or would like me to cite more examples, please start a new thread, as this topic is going astray from the OP.

 

[una_fides]

I did read the article and it didn’t help. It basically is saying that from all the books referred to in the article scholars still can’t agree on his position on Mary being conceived without original sin. It says some think Aquinas agreed she was not conceived in original sin while others think his position was that Mary was conceived in original sin while some think he believed in the immaculate conception but could not properly document it to make his view understood. In other words there is still a whole cross section of opinion, including yours.

Tell me then how do you explain the words of Aquinas in his Catechetical Instructions:
…
I’m eager to hear your explanation for Aquinas’ own words. How can they be construed as anything other than a rejection of the Immaculate Conception? What do these words mean?

First, I do not have access to the document to read your quote in context. If you have access to a complete online text, then please send it to me (preferably in a private message so we do not continue this discussion on this thread as it does not pertain to the OP). Before commenting on a quote, I must first read it in its complete context to be sure it is understood properly. Many people can quote things out of context making them say or infer something further than what was intended, as do many protestants with Scripture. I’m not saying that was what was done here, but I cannot comment without first doing further research. I would also have to read all of Aquinas’s other comments on the Immaculate Conception in his other works as well in their respective contexts. From there, I could begin formulating my opinion. I would then likely read several books on the topic, as the article I posted recommended various books with various understandings on Aquinas’s teachings on the matter. It would only be then that I could safely arrive at a fair conclusion. Since I have not done such research, and since honestly the topic is not of as much significance to me as it appears to be to you, I cannot make any fair assessment. I suggest also postponing your own judgment on the matter until you have done the research I recommended above as well, if you have not already. Lastly, what I do know on the topic, was that it was in fact Thomistic theology that laid the foundation for and subsequently produced the complete teaching and understanding of the Immaculate Conception, as St. Thomas raised the potential problems with its teaching that later theologians were able to explain based on his other teachings. Regardless of his understanding of this dogma not defined in his day, the various popes’ pronouncements concerning those who assail his teachings are not somehow therefore invalidated.

If you wish to comment further on this matter, please start a new thread on this discussion, as it is delving completely off topic from the OP. Thank you.

 

[Genesis315]

Here are a few quick examples of infallible (and therefore irreformable) teachings of the Church that I do not believe are present in the modern CCC:

Vatican I – Infallible declaration:
“3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

This is taught in the sections on the Magisterium CCC 85-88

From the Council of Trent: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
[Concerning this one, the argument that will then be raised is whether Vatican II permitted the Mass solely in the vernacular. It did not make such a statement. It merely permitted that some prayers may be done in the vernacular (vulgar tongue), and it also demanded that the Latin language be preserved in the liturgy. But again, we are getting onto another topic of discussion here.]

First off, this is not condemning vernacular liturgies, spoken canons, etc., but rather it is condemning the idea that Latin, silent canons, etc. are evil. Generally, these propositions are covered in the sections dealing with Church authority to develop liturgical rites. See CCC 1203 and 1205.

I also recommend going through Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, and I’m sure you will find errors that were condemned there that are not referenced in the CCC. You will also find errors condemned in there that the CCC appears to contradict, but I don’t believe does as they must be interpreted in light of the Church’s tradition.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

First office, the Syllabus is not a list of solemn dogmatic condemnations, like, say, Bl. Innocent XI’s condemnations in Coelestis Pastor. Quanta Cura, the encyclical the Syllabus accompanied does contain just such a solemn condemnation (cited in CCC 2109, footnote 39); however, the Syllabus must be read with the allocutions it points to–it is not a stand alone magisterial text. Newman explains this well here.

That being said, the principles expressed in it are elsewhere in the Catechism such as the obligation for faith (no “reason alone”) (CCC 2087-2089), the obligation of men and societies to assent to the truth revealed by God (2104 et seq), the irrevocable character of dogmas (CCC 88), etc.

There may be certain specific things that are not expressly laid out, but they are at least implicitly there or covered in more general statements as far as I can tell.

I hope that helps!

 

[thistle]

I’m afraid that we are again encountering an absolute interpretation to text that does not make such an assertion. The quote you cited above does not support your idea that the CCC contains all Church teachings. It simply says that it is* a statement of the Church’s faith and teachings. “I believe in one God” is a *statement of the Church’s faith and Catholic doctrine; however, it is not all the Church’s faith and doctrine though it very well may be the most general summary as the source of our faith.

The purpose of the CCC is a summation of normative teachings of the Church, but it was never intended to be somehow a compilation of all 2000 years of Church teaching.

I was going to cite examples in that post, but I had hoped I didn’t have to and that my last explanation would have been enough. There have been many general councils and there are very many canons from those councils. How many times does the CCC anathematize anyone for not holding to a particular dogma? Yet this is the teaching of the Church that unless a man believes x,y, and z, he is anathema (excommunicated, out of the Church and literally by definition of the word “accursed”). And then there are all the solemn papal declarations that have been made throughout history as well.

Here are a few quick examples of infallible (and therefore irreformable) teachings of the Church that I do not believe are present in the modern CCC:

Vatican I – Infallible declaration:
“3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

From the Council of Trent: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
[Concerning this one, the argument that will then be raised is whether Vatican II permitted the Mass solely in the vernacular. It did not make such a statement. It merely permitted that some prayers may be done in the vernacular (vulgar tongue), and it also demanded that the Latin language be preserved in the liturgy. But again, we are getting onto another topic of discussion here.]

I also recommend going through Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, and I’m sure you will find errors that were condemned there that are not referenced in the CCC. You will also find errors condemned in there that the CCC appears to contradict, but I don’t believe does as they must be interpreted in light of the Church’s tradition.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

If given more time, I could find lots of examples, and I’m sure others on here would be able to give examples as well, but I do not believe that this topic merits such further research on my part. If you would like to discuss this topic further or would like me to cite more examples, please start a new thread, as this topic is going astray from the OP.

I assume that’s just a joke you are making. Give us a break. The CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings.

 

[thistle]

First, I do not have access to the document to read your quote in context. If you have access to a complete online text, then please send it to me (preferably in a private message so we do not continue this discussion on this thread as it does not pertain to the OP). Before commenting on a quote, I must first read it in its complete context to be sure it is understood properly. Many people can quote things out of context making them say or infer something further than what was intended, as do many protestants with Scripture. I’m not saying that was what was done here, but I cannot comment without first doing further research. I would also have to read all of Aquinas’s other comments on the Immaculate Conception in his other works as well in their respective contexts. From there, I could begin formulating my opinion. I would then likely read several books on the topic, as the article I posted recommended various books with various understandings on Aquinas’s teachings on the matter. It would only be then that I could safely arrive at a fair conclusion. Since I have not done such research, and since honestly the topic is not of as much significance to me as it appears to be to you, I cannot make any fair assessment. I suggest also postponing your own judgment on the matter until you have done the research I recommended above as well, if you have not already. Lastly, what I do know on the topic, was that it was in fact Thomistic theology that laid the foundation for and subsequently produced the complete teaching and understanding of the Immaculate Conception, as St. Thomas raised the potential problems with its teaching that later theologians were able to explain based on his other teachings. Regardless of his understanding of this dogma not defined in his day, the various popes’ pronouncements concerning those who assail his teachings are not somehow therefore invalidated.

If you wish to comment further on this matter, please start a new thread on this discussion, as it is delving completely off topic from the OP. Thank you.

Okay. Look for new thread. I’ll title it Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception.

 

[una_fides]

I assume that’s just a joke you are making. Give us a break. The CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings.

In looking at your post again, I realized that you used the word “summary” rather than just saying that it contains all the teachings of the Church. (Sorry, lack of sleep can do that to you. ) If you look at it in a broad sense of the word summary, then I could agree with that.

Nevertheless, my point was and is that the CCC does not contain a complete description or explanation of all the Church’s teachings nor does it cover every teaching of the Church specifically. It may in the sense of a broad overview, but not in the sense of a complete explanation. For this reason the CCC will often cite explicitly in the text itself the Councils from which it derived its teachings, to thereby point the reader to the full explanation, as is done concerning the Church’s teachings on purgatory.

And back to the purgatory topic: concerning the interpretation of the CCC text you provided, would you agree that the statement is not absolute concerning purgatory and hell being entirely different in every possible aspect but that it is saying that in general the two states are entirely different (whether it has in mind location, effect, and/or duration, etc)? And do you also now agree that one can interpret the CCC passage as to not exclude the possibility that the “fire” itself in both locations could be the same matter as fire but with entirely different effects?

 

[una_fides]

This is taught in the sections on the Magisterium CCC 85-88

Thank you for your comments. I read the sections you referenced, and they do not in fact have any mention to interpreting dogmas in the same sense as the Church has always understood, which is what the declaration from Vatican I said. Many people today have the modernist notion that dogmas can be interpreted anew in different ways than how the Church has taught. For example, I’ve heard priests try to say that Christ’s Resurrection was not bodily and that we don’t know the way in which Christ was resurrected or whether it was a bodily or just a “spiritual” one. That is a prime example of interpretation in a different sense. The CCC does not explicitly condemn such ideas and therefore does not contain this specific infallible teaching of the faith, at least not in any explicit way. I’m sure one can argue that it may in some way be implicitly implied since the Church says she has the final say on matters of faith, but again such a statement leaves wiggle room for the modernists in their re-interpretations of Church teachings.

First off, this is not condemning vernacular liturgies, spoken canons, etc., but rather it is condemning the idea that Latin, silent canons, etc. are evil.

I suggest reading again the passage. Your response seems to be an overall generalization of the text rather than taking the passage for what it literally says. Let me re-quote the reference from Trent with emphasis on the part in question:
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
I don’t see anything in the text that says or explicitly implies that such people who say that the Mass should be in the vernacular only must also have the notion that masses said only in Latin are evil. It simply says what it says, and Vatican II reaffirms this teaching, that the Latin language is to be preserved in the liturgy. We cannot say that Mass should be only exclusively done in the vernacular for to say such would be heresy; we must accept that it be done in Latin and as VII said the Latin language is to be preserved in the liturgy. I do not see the problem here, but I think I might start a separate thread on this point, as I think it would make for an interesting discussion.

Regarding your comments on Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, we could debate over how solemn the condemnations are, but regardless, they are teachings of the faith explicitly condemned by the sovereign pontiff and as such are a part of the teachings of the Church and many of them are not contained or referenced at all in the CCC.

There may be certain specific things that are not expressly laid out, but they are at least implicitly there or covered in more general statements as far as I can tell.
I hope that helps!

Thank you for your assistance and looking up those references. It does help explain that teachings could possibly be in some way implicitly implied in the CCC but not actually addressed specifically. I think the overall point on our discussion on the CCC is that it is not an infallible once and for all final say so on all the teachings of the Church for the past 2000 years but that it is simply a summary of Church teachings for the purpose of teaching people concerning the faith. But again, we digress…

 

[mnealon1]

The Catechism defines Purgatory as " a state of punishment in the next life where some souls suffer for a time before they go to Heaven" Those who go to Purgatory have been forgiven of venial and mortal sins on earth ( i.e. confession) but God often requires temporal punishment to be made for offending His Majesty and Goodness, and indebeted to Gods justice.
This is the process of purification, and shedding the attachments we have not managed while still alive.
St. Faustina describes where a Nun appeared to her and asked for her prayers. St. Faustina described how she barley recognised the Nun she was so distorted looking ( suffering )and begged her Spiritual director that she be allowed to do great sacrafices for this Nun. The Nun appeared again and and was much improved. St.Faustina continued sacfifices and when the Nun appeared again she was beautiful and told St. Faustina she was not in need of any more prayers.!
I think is a wonderful way of describing Purgatory and the power we have to pray for the Souls in Purgatory, especially those who have no one to pray for them
Jesus gave His life for us to redeem and save us and because of this we are already saved and I think reason would tell us that in order to be enter His Kingdom we would have to be shining white,! This takes place in Purgatory.
For myself I will be so greatful to be in Purgatory to suffer anything to get to Heaven . The greatest suffering is not being able to see the face of God yet. Although in Purgatory, you are “safe” You are on the way to Heaven !

 

[una_fides]

The Catechism defines Purgatory as " a state of punishment in the next life where some souls suffer for a time before they go to Heaven" Those who go to Purgatory have been forgiven of venial and mortal sins on earth ( i.e. confession) but God often requires temporal punishment to be made for offending His Majesty and Goodness, and indebeted to Gods justice.
This is the process of purification, and shedding the attachments we have not managed while still alive.
St. Faustina describes where a Nun appeared to her and asked for her prayers. St. Faustina described how she barley recognised the Nun she was so distorted looking ( suffering )and begged her Spiritual director that she be allowed to do great sacrafices for this Nun. The Nun appeared again and and was much improved. St.Faustina continued sacfifices and when the Nun appeared again she was beautiful and told St. Faustina she was not in need of any more prayers.!
I think is a wonderful way of describing Purgatory and the power we have to pray for the Souls in Purgatory, especially those who have no one to pray for them
Jesus gave His life for us to redeem and save us and because of this we are already saved and I think reason would tell us that in order to be enter His Kingdom we would have to be shining white,! This takes place in Purgatory.
For myself I will be so greatful to be in Purgatory to suffer anything to get to Heaven . The greatest suffering is not being able to see the face of God yet. Although in Purgatory, you are “safe” You are on the way to Heaven !

Great post. I have one question for clarification on a statement you made, however. What did you mean by “we are already saved”? From the rest of your post, it sounds like you are right on, but this phrase I think is open for misinterpretation, so I wanted to get your clarification. Thanks!

 

[thistle]

The Catechism defines Purgatory as " a state of punishment in the next life where some souls suffer for a time before they go to Heaven" Those who go to Purgatory have been forgiven of venial and mortal sins on earth ( i.e. confession) but God often requires temporal punishment to be made for offending His Majesty and Goodness, and indebeted to Gods justice.
This is the process of purification, and shedding the attachments we have not managed while still alive.
St. Faustina describes where a Nun appeared to her and asked for her prayers. St. Faustina described how she barley recognised the Nun she was so distorted looking ( suffering )and begged her Spiritual director that she be allowed to do great sacrafices for this Nun. The Nun appeared again and and was much improved. St.Faustina continued sacfifices and when the Nun appeared again she was beautiful and told St. Faustina she was not in need of any more prayers.!
I think is a wonderful way of describing Purgatory and the power we have to pray for the Souls in Purgatory, especially those who have no one to pray for them
Jesus gave His life for us to redeem and save us and because of this we are already saved and I think reason would tell us that in order to be enter His Kingdom we would have to be shining white,! This takes place in Purgatory.
For myself I will be so greatful to be in Purgatory to suffer anything to get to Heaven . The greatest suffering is not being able to see the face of God yet. Although in Purgatory, you are “safe” You are on the way to Heaven !

For my benefit will you tell me which section of the CCC states what you said (I mean the part of your comments I highlighted). Below are the only sections I could find on Purgatory.

THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

CCC 1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

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. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

CCC 1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them

CCC 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and 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 an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. 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. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.