Question about Penance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taestron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Taestron

Guest
In my ongoing quest to find out what was valid about the Protestant Reformation, I stumbled onto the distinction between the guilt of sin (which only God can forgive) and the temporal consequences of sin (which remain even after baptism). I guess I could accept this type of categorical distinction, but I have questions regarding the implementation of this teaching. First, why is it that Jesus’ death provides the remittance of eternal punishment but not temporal punishment? I can see why we need penance for the residual stain of original sin, but I don’t see why God would forgive the guilt of sin and take away the eternal punishment but leave the temporal punishment.

Second, does penance provide for all forms of temporal punishment? By this I mean, if I commit some sin in the past and i do sufficient penance, would I still be liable for secular ramifications? For example, let us say I committed theft against the Church in my youth, and I felt guilty and returned the object in question anonymously. Then I went and lived my life as a saint while doing a sufficient amount of penance. If it is ever found out that I was the thief, could the Church justly turn me over to secular punishment even though I had done a sufficient amount of penance for the crime? It would seem to me not, though I do not want to say that my debt to society was paid. I must admit this question is more of a curiosity than an actual point of debate.
 
I can see why we need penance for the residual stain of original sin, but I don’t see why God would forgive the guilt of sin and take away the eternal punishment but leave the temporal punishment.
Usually when we start asking “why,” we’re outside of doctrine and getting into figuring out what’s in God’s “head.” I can give you a practical answer which is that we still live in a fallen, terrestrial world, and suffering remains. Also, we are united to Christ’s suffering when we suffer - in a theological sense, it is God’s way of generously letting us participate in the work of redemption because we are members of Christ’s body. It’s kind of like we “need” the temporal punishments to help us to properly love God. Maybe someone can shed better light.
Second, does penance provide for all forms of temporal punishment? By this I mean, if I commit some sin in the past and i do sufficient penance, would I still be liable for secular ramifications? For example, let us say I committed theft against the Church in my youth, and I felt guilty and returned the object in question anonymously. Then I went and lived my life as a saint while doing a sufficient amount of penance. If it is ever found out that I was the thief, could the Church justly turn me over to secular punishment even though I had done a sufficient amount of penance for the crime? It would seem to me not, though I do not want to say that my debt to society was paid. I must admit this question is more of a curiosity than an actual point of debate.
According to the way you worded it, if your penance was sufficient to remit all stains of the sin, then the secular punishment would be something on top of that I would think.
 
In my ongoing quest to find out what was valid about the Protestant Reformation, I stumbled onto the distinction between the guilt of sin (which only God can forgive) and the temporal consequences of sin (which remain even after baptism). I guess I could accept this type of categorical distinction, but I have questions regarding the implementation of this teaching. First, why is it that Jesus’ death provides the remittance of eternal punishment but not temporal punishment? I can see why we need penance for the residual stain of original sin, but I don’t see why God would forgive the guilt of sin and take away the eternal punishment but leave the temporal punishment.

Second, does penance provide for all forms of temporal punishment? By this I mean, if I commit some sin in the past and i do sufficient penance, would I still be liable for secular ramifications? For example, let us say I committed theft against the Church in my youth, and I felt guilty and returned the object in question anonymously. Then I went and lived my life as a saint while doing a sufficient amount of penance. If it is ever found out that I was the thief, could the Church justly turn me over to secular punishment even though I had done a sufficient amount of penance for the crime? It would seem to me not, though I do not want to say that my debt to society was paid. I must admit this question is more of a curiosity than an actual point of debate.
I will just recommend a book…Scott Hahn’s Lord Have Mercy.

Or this, if you have not read it from previous posts…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html
\

Here is the section on Penance…

It goes on, 1st Peter 4, verse 8, “Above all hold unfailing your love for one another since love covers a multitude of sins.” In other words, it’s not just Christ suffering. It’s not just Christ’s love that covers our sins. We are so truly united to Christ, His life is so truly filling us up that when we suffer, we cease from sin. It isn’t just Christ suffering. It’s Christ suffering lived out in us and through us for our sake and for those around us, but then as charity flowers and becomes complete and perfect in us, love covers a multitude of sins. Why? Because Christ’s love wasn’t enough, He didn’t suffer long enough? No, because His suffering and His redemption having been finished and accomplished by the Holy Spirit, the third forgotten Person of the Trinity, applied in us who are mystical members of His mystical body.

That’s what penance is all about. We must do penance, John the Baptist said. We must do penance, Jesus Christ said. We must do penance, St. Paul and St. Peter and on and on and on; they all say it. It is not just an attitude or an emotion. It’s not just a decision or an experience. It’s not just a choice at a stadium where we go for what the choir sings. We’ve got to mortify our bodies. We’ve got to do penance every day. Well I’m preaching to myself, too, this morning. I don’t know what you’re hearing, but I know what I’m hearing. Oh I tell you, for all who are led, for all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. “For you do not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship.”

Then he goes on talking about something that is very important to what we are saying. “When we cry Abba, Father, it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, and if children then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs of Christ.” We will be fellow heirs of Christ. Oh, I’d just love it if Paul would stop right there, right there! Put a period and start a new chapter. He doesn’t. “Fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” All of a sudden, chills are going up and down my spine. Oh, oh, wait a second, God. I like it up until that point. “I will hold fast the courage, but suffering separates me from Christ.” Paul goes on to argue in the rest of Romans 8, No, no, no!. Suffering is not what separates you from Christ, suffering is what unites you ever more closely with the spirit of Christ."

t’s the refusal to suffer that separates you from Christ. I used to use this passage to say, "Nothing can ever separate you from Christ in the sense that no matter what you do, once you’re saved, always saved. You know, you’ve got it made in the shade. Not saved once saved always, that Christ decreed you to be saved always unto eternity. But that’s God’s business. For us, as Paul says in Philippians, we’ve got to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, with the assurance that God’s grace is sufficient, but with the knowledge that we’ve got to cooperate morning, noon and night. So he goes on and he says, “provided we suffer.” …That’s got to be the beginning and end of it all. “The spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.” He goes on and what does he say in this whole chapter? He’s not saying once saved, always saved, which means in the spirit you’ve got it made in the shade. He is saying, “Once saved, you’ve got to suffer with Christ in order to enter into His glory.” And if you think suffer and suffrage from Christ, you’ve got it backwards…The assumption is, we’ve got to suffer to be glorified. Because the essence of Christianity is Christ reproducing His life and His suffering, His death and His resurrection and His glory in us.

We can’t even imagine what it’s like, but we have been granted the fiery Holy Spirit of love to enable us to do what would otherwise be humanly impossible in this life, to purge ourselves. That is why Paul says in Colossians 1:24 something that used to baffle me, Colossians 1:24, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake.” Masochist? No. In a sense, he is the opportunist. He is the one who sees the ultimate rewards. “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body that is the Church.” …t means that Christ’s suffering and death must be reproduced and filled up in the Church and if some are slacking off, that means others must become more like victim-souls, willing to bear a greater burden, willing to shoulder with love, as Galatians 5 speaks about the love, “Love bears one another’s burdens.” We do that just as 1st John 5 speaks about how we can pray for others and get them back on track after their venial sins have been committed. So likewise we can suffer on behalf of others. That’s what fathers and mothers do all the time. And God calls us to do that in the supernatural family, as well, on behalf of our brothers and sisters and our spiritual children, as well. That’s what Paul takes for granted when he makes such an outlandish statement. Outlandish only for those who do not recognize the essential need for suffering.
 
First, why is it that Jesus’ death provides the remittance of eternal punishment but not temporal punishment? I can see why we need penance for the residual stain of original sin, but I don’t see why God would forgive the guilt of sin and take away the eternal punishment but leave the temporal punishment.
No temporal punishment remains after the Sacrament of Baptism or after a penitent’s post-baptismal conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity or perfect contrition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1263, 1472) Because no punishment of sin, even temporal punishment remains, St. Thomas Aquinas described Baptism as a full participation in Jesus’ death.

Temporal punishment of post-baptismal sin remains after the Sacrament of Penance, when the penitent’s conversion proceeds from imperfect contrition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1473) St. Thomas Aquinas described this as a partial participation in Jesus’ death.

My guess is that God allows temporal punishment to remain after a conversion which proceeds from imperfect contrition as a way to motivate us to strive for perfect charity and “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14)
 
If you break my window, I can forgive you but I still want you to fix my window.
 
Usually when we start asking “why,” we’re outside of doctrine and getting into figuring out what’s in God’s “head.”
Beautifully written.

To offer my opinion, though, I think about it like this, which fits with the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraphs 1030-2:

Purgatory and temportal punishment after death are really more of a purification of our souls rather than form of justice. Our souls must be pure before entering heaven and being united with God. It is not that we are being punished for not being perfect, yet, but that the pain of purgatory is simply a by-product of the necessary purification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top