Purgatory exists to deal with the expiation of the temporal punishment due to post-baptismal personal sin, that part of the punishment which the person has not been able to expiate while on earth. The purpose of purgatory is the expiation of sin, or the discharge of the debt of temporal punishment (Trent, Session 6, Canon 30). The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks about "those who are expiating their sins in purgatory" (paragraph 1475). To "expiate" means to make reparation for an offence or injury. This expiation is achieved through suffering of the soul. Unless completed on earth, "expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." And again, those "who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance of their sins and omissions are cleaned after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican II, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, 1967). * * * Temporal punishment That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God. (Catholic Encyclopedia - https://ift.tt/T0u6oi ) * * * The Pope Benedict XVI does recognize a substantial difference between Orthodox and his church's stand on the matter: 48. A further point must be mentioned here, because it is important for the practice of Christian hope. Early Jewish thought includes the idea that one can help the deceased in their intermediate state through prayer (see for example 2 Macc 12:38-45; first century BC). The equivalent practice was readily adopted by Christians and is common to the Eastern and Western Church. The East does not recognize the purifying and expiatory suffering of souls in the afterlife, but it does acknowledge various levels of beatitude and of suffering in the intermediate state. The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today. (ENCYCLICAL LETTER Spe Salvi - Pope Benedict XVI) * * * [In the bellow quote] I highlighted the crux of the matter. I think this dual definition of 'punishment' is entirely absent from Orthodox theology: 1473 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. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man." * * * 2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments. Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them. (Indulgentarium Doctrina - Pope Paul VI, 1967) * * * Do yourself a favor and pick up any book in the 1950's teaching the Roman Catholic Faith... This is The Faith Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Everyman's Theology Baltimore Catechism etc and you will find the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950's and 'all' of them taught Purgatory, Limbo, etc in the same exact way with very little in common with today's Roman Catholic Theology. Modern Roman Catholics are all about reductionism. Separating 'depictions' from Doctrine, Traditions from traditions, etc etc. That is because within this kind of reconstruction you would be forced to deal with the contradictions such a move in Theology would create. I'd recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years. Now you and others may argue that this 'piece' of Classic Theology wasn't 'infallibly' spoken or was only tradition with a small "t". For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce. It's rationalizing how we 'change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church' without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church... and that is weak in my opinion. For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a 'place and state' and that Limbo was a 'place and state' but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions. I ask, what happened to 'truth'? I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn't because this or that wasn't spoken infallibly or was actually never 'really' part of Tradition but only tradition with a small "t". I simply can't believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into... the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. * * * Fr Hardon has been one of the pre-eminent apologists of the Catholic Faith over the last 40 years. His works are everywhere, on EWTN, etc., etc. Fr Hardon served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Writers in the Latin tradition are quite unanimous that the fire of purgatory is real and not metaphorical. They argue from the common teaching of the Latin Fathers, of some Greek Fathers, and of certain papal statements like that of Pope Innocent IV, who spoke of “a transitory fire” (DB 456). ("The Doctrine of Purgatory" by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.https://ift.tt/2P500BD) * * * On the Catholic Encyclopedia: At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"). Perhaps there is another problem, and that is differentiating between when a Pope speaks as a matter of doctrine versus when he speaks merely out of personal opinion. In terms of the Orthodox, since no one person has the status of authoritatively speaking for the Church (we have saints that come close, such as St. John Chrysostom, but I have read Orthodox take issue with this or that thing he said and not be accused of departing from the Church's teaching), then it is much easier for us to dismiss this person or that saint as being 'out on a limb.' In the West, since the Pope holds the position of supreme authority when it comes to the determination of doctrinal statements, it is assumed that every time a Pope speaks, he is speaking authoritatively on the matter of which he speaks. This impression was reinforced by a pronouncement regarding 'infallibility' of the Pope's pronouncements, though I have heard that it has been variously attenuated and not even used in recent memory (unless I am mistaken, which is entirely possible in this matter). The Council of Trent proclaimed "difficult and subtle questions" as Purgatory ought not be discussed (as did the Treaty of Brest), but they certainly are taught as the CCC demonstrates. To me, it appears the Magisterium of the RCC is not always very comfortable with this topic, given that it has caused them a great deal of controversy and that they are willing to unify with Orthodox who reject the teachings regarding temporal punishment, yet equally insist that such teachings are obligatory for all Roman Catholics. * * * Whether they qualify as technically infallible or not by reason of the presence of the formula: "we believe, state, proclaim and define... to the whole Church", papal pronouncements still cannot not be denied by Catholics. There is still a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly." "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25 Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority. In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings. * * * [Indulgences] has to do with the Western idea of the "merits of the saints" and binding and loosing. Basically it's been taught in the Roman Catholic Church that there is a treasury of merits in heaven earned by the saints. The pope can therefore issue indulgences, drawing from this treasury of merit, and apply it in expiation of the time one is due to spend in purgatory( where one is being cleanesed of a "residual" stain of forgiven sins for which insufficient pennance was done, or unconfessed venial sins.) The pope issues indulgences, promising either the partial or full removal of time in purgatory. An indulgence may also be applied to the deceased. In order for one to gain an indulgenxe one must will to gain said indulgence, usually attatched to performing some sort of pious act, recieve Comunion, pray for the intentions of the pope and be free from all attatchment to even venial sin. If the last condition of freedom of attatchment to venial sin is not met, the indulgence becomes partial, and not plenary(full). The above commentaries was copied from the discussion at https://ift.tt/2z6oAHu * * * See also a superb discussion of the Homilies refuting the purgatorial fire given by St. Mark of Ephesus at this same Synod: The Soul After Death, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, App. I, pp. 196-213. Here are Fr. Seraphim's introductory remarks on these homilies: The Orthodox teaching on the state of souls after death is one that is often not fully understood, even by Orthodox Christians themselves; and the comparatively late Latin teaching of "purgatory" has caused further confusion in people's minds. The Orthodox doctrine itself, however, is not at all ambiguous or imprecise. Perhaps the most concise Orthodox exposition of it is to be found in the writings of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence in 1439, composed precisely in order to answer the Latin teaching on "purgatory." These writings are especially valuable to us in that coming as they do from the last of the Byzantine Fathers, before the modern era with all its theological confusions, they both point us to the sources of the Orthodox doctrine and instruct us how to approach and understand these sources. These sources are: Scripture, Patristic homilies, church services, Lives of Saints, and certain revelations and visions of life after death, such as those contained in Book IV of the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great. Today's academic theologians tend to mistrust the latter two or three kinds of sources, which is why they are often uneasy when speaking on this subject and sometimes prefer to keep an "agnostic reticence" with regard to it (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 259). St. Marks writings, on the other hand, show us how much "at home" with these sources genuine Orthodox theologians are; those who are "uncomfortable" with them perhaps reveal thereby an unsuspected infection with modern unbelief. Of St. Mark's four replies on purgatory composed at the Council of Florence, the First Homily contains the most concise account of the Orthodox doctrine as against the Latin errors, and it is chiefly from it that this translation has been compiled. The other replies contain mostly illustrative material for the points discussed here, as well as answers to more specific Latin arguments. The "Latin Chapter" to which St. Mark replies are those written by Julian Cardinal Cesarini (Russian translation in Pogodin, pp. 50-57), giving the Latin teaching, defined at the earlier "Union" Council of Lyons (1270), on the state of souls after death. This teaching strikes the Orthodox reader (as indeed it struck St. Mark) as one of an entirely too "literalistic" and "legalistic" character. The Latins by this time had come to regard heaven and hell as somehow "finished" and "absolute," and those in them as already possessing the fullness of the state they will have after the Last Judgment; thus, there is no need to pray for those in heaven (whose lot is already perfect) or those in hell (for they can never be delivered or cleansed from sin). But since many of the faithful die in a "middle" state—not perfect enough for heaven, but not evil enough for hell—the logic of the Latin arguments required a third place of cleansing (''purgatory"), where even those whose sins had already been forgiven had to be punished or give "satisfaction" for their sins before being sufficiently cleansed to enter heaven. These legalistic arguments of a purely human "justice" (which actually deny God's supreme goodness and love of mankind) the Latins proceeded to support by literalistic interpretations of certain Patristic texts and various visions; almost all of these interpretations are quite contrived and arbitrary, because not even the ancient Latin Fathers spoke of such a place as "purgatory," but only of the "cleansing" from sins after death, which some of them referred to (probably allegorically) as by "fire." In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also. There is no fire tormenting sinners now, however, either in hell (for the eternal fire will begin to torment them only after the Last Judgment), or much less in any third place like "purgatory"; all visions of fire which are seen by men are as it were images or prophecies of what will be in the future age. All forgiveness of sins after death comes solely from the goodness of God, which extends even to those in hell, with the cooperation of the prayers of men, and no "payment" or "satisfaction" is due for sins which have been forgiven. It should be noted that St. Mark's writings concern primarily the specific point of the state of souls after death, and barely touch on the history of the events that occur to the soul immediately after death. On the latter point there is an abundant Orthodox literature, but this point was not under discussion at Florence. - Artículo*: Unknown - Más info en psico@mijasnatural.com / 607725547 MENADEL Psicología Clínica y Transpersonal Tradicional (Pneumatología) en Mijas Pueblo (MIJAS NATURAL) *No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí enlazados
Purgatory exists to deal with the expiation of the temporal punishment due to post-baptismal personal sin, that part of the punishment ...
- Enlace a artículo -
Más info en psico@mijasnatural.com / 607725547 MENADEL Psicología Clínica y Transpersonal Tradicional (Pneumatología) en Mijas y Fuengirola, MIJAS NATURAL.
(No suscribimos necesariamente las opiniones o artículos aquí presentados)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario