Im Confused By The Purgatory Thread

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1611348' date='Jul 29 2008, 06:20 AM']Which Catechism are you finding this in? There must be a reason it's not included in the current one.[/quote]

It can be found in the _The Catechism Explained_

The contemporary catechism doesn't go into *detail* about purgatory, it doesn't mean any teaching has changed. The reason for the particular presentation is probably ecumenical.

[quote]My point is everything we are required to believe is included in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and the entirety of both come from the apostolic age. The apostolic age ended when St. John died, thus there is no new revelation.[/quote]

You're being unreasonably conservative. Not *everything* is written *explicitly* in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Secondly, St Augustine was not introducing anything new to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, he was simply expounding from it.

[quote]Can you explain how my reasoning is false? I can't accept your opinion alone.[/quote]

You said,
[i]but we aren't required to believe it unless it's from Scripture and/or Tradition, or declared an infallible teaching of the Church in a Council or by the Pope[/i]

This is false because it's not true.

Here are some examples:

The following is taken from: [url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/search?q=classifications"]http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/search?q=classifications[/url]
[color="#0000FF"][b]
3. Truths to be held with religious assent of intellect and will:[/b]

[i]Doctrina catholica[/i] (Catholic doctrine): a truth which is taught in the entire Church, but is not always infallibly proposed: viz., those things which the Roman Pontiffs explicitly desire to teach in encyclicals: e.g., the doctrines on the Sacred Liturgy in Pius XII's Mediator Dei. The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in doctrina catholica (error in Catholic doctrine).

[i]Theologice certa[/i] (a truth that is theologically certain): a truth which was acknowledged “in the theological schools” as certain and having a necessary logical connection with Revelation; such connection may be virtual, or presupositive, or final: e.g., "Christ posessed the beatific vision while on earth, even before his death and resurrection." The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in theologia (error in theology).

[i]Ita tenenda, ut contraria sit temeraria[/i] (a doctrine that is to be held, such that the contrary is temerary): a truth proposed by the Roman Congregations, which nevertheless does not enjoy the special approval of the Roman Pontiff: e.g., “The first Gospel was written by the apostle St. Matthew.” The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called doctrina temeraria (temerary doctrine).

[b]4. Doctrines that are to be respected and revered:[/b]

[i]Sententia communis, certa in theologia[/i] (a common doctrine, a doctrine that is certain in theology): a doctrine that is proposed “in the schools” by the common consensus of theologians (i.e., in pontifical faculties of theologians, prior to 1962, when their orthodoxy was carefully safeguarded) as “well founded”: e.g., “Grace presupposes and perfects nature.” The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called falsa in theologia, vel temeraria, vel scholis catholicis injuriosa (false in theology, or temerary, or injurious to catholic schools).

[i]Sententia pia[/i] (pious doctrine): a doctrine which is not theologically exact, but which communicates well the piety and sentiments of the faithful: e.g., “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost.” A truth that is contrary to this level of catholic truth is called scandalosa seu male sonans seu offensiva piarum aurium (scandalous, or bad-sounding, or offensive to pious ears).[/color]


[quote]That's just the thing. We can have differing beliefs about the experience of purgatory because all we know is the purpose it serves in preparing a soul for Heaven.[/quote]

I'm afraid you're wrong. You can't simply disregard teachings that are at least over a millenia old and are found in the writings of Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Saints, Catechisms, and various books concerning the subject.

The question is what basis you have for dissenting from this teaching, and it better be a good one!

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1611354' date='Jul 29 2008, 06:51 AM']Okay, we're getting somewhere now... there is one significant problem with Aquinas' logic, which may be due to limited scientific knowledge of his time: a body's "entire capacity to sense" does not come from the soul. We have a nervous system that gives us the capacity of physican sensation.[/quote]

If the capacity to sense doesn't come from the Soul, then how will the Souls in hell or purgatory suffer **prior** to the resurrection? Clearly, the soul must have the capacity to sense. The fact that contemporary science has illuminated our understanding of our *body's* means of sensation does not mean there is a contradiction with what St Thomas said.

Pain on earth is different because it's mitigated through the body. In the afterlife, the pain will be DIRECTED to our Soul. The latter will be a pain like we've never experienced before, and it will be far worse because it will reach our innermost being.

[quote]Now, it can be said that emotional pain is usually worse than physical pain. However, knowing that animals can sense emotional pain, we must conclude that emotional pain is more a temporaral experience than spiritual.[/quote]

There are many problems with this statement, sufficient to say the conclusion is false because we don't have to accept that humans and animals experience pain the same way.

[quote]The Catechism only mentions temporal punishment.[/quote]

What's your point? "Temporal" simply means it's temporary, doesn't mean it has to be "worldly." The fact is the soul experiences temporal punishment even before the Resurrection.

Even if (I'm not sure it doesn't!) the Catechism doesn't go into detail about the temporal punishments it doesn't mean teachings have changed. You know the argument from silence is not a logical argument.

[quote]Is sense-punishment even possible without a physical body?[/quote]

Again, the answer is [b]yes[/b]. When our soul is separated from the body at death, some of us will sense the pains of hell, some the pains of purgatory, and some the bliss of heaven.

[quote]Of course, there is still the pain of knowing we could be Heaven when we are not. I don't think "punishment" is the best word to describe it though. If a married couple must be separated for a long period of time, they wouldn't consider their separation a punishment, even if it was somehow their own fault. Still, it would be a painful experience because they love each other more than anyone else, that same love would also serve to console them. I think in a similar way, we must balance the pain of separation from God in purgatory with the consolation that we have certain expectation of being in Heaven.[/quote]

You can't IMAGINE the pain of being separated from God. It's NOTHING like spouses separating from each other!

God is the SUPREME GOOD, as of now we love Him through Faith, but for those who die they become aware of how Infinitely Beautiful, Good, and Loving He is, and the fact that they are separated from Him because of their own deeds will TORTURE their souls and serve as PUNISHMENT.

Here is a better analogy though still incomparable. Imagine if I chained you to a wall and starved you until you were skin and bones. Then I bring out a table with the most delicious assortment of food just out of your reach! You can smell the savory food but you can't take it! Meditate on this type of pain!

[quote]So, I don't know. When we read anything from as far back as Aquinas' time, the context and reasoning are usually more important to us than the conclusions.[/quote]

This type of statement reflects the pride of modern man. The fact that St Thomas lived in the 13th century means nothing. Our greatest thinkers are like mental midgets compared to the Angelic Doctor!

[quote]After all, he also didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception, but his reasons was rooted in the question of when human life actually begins. Once science was able to tell us that human life begins at conception, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception logically followed.[/quote]

Heh...

It had absolutely nothing to do with when human life begins. Conception in the theological understanding takes place when the soul is created out of nothing and is unified with the body. Whether this happens at the moment of the zygote's formation or a certain period of time after the zygote develops is IRRELEVANT. The dilemma some theologians had was how Mary could be free of original sin when original sin is universal. The solution to this came from the Holy Spirit and theology, NOT science!

Edited July 30, 2008 by mortify

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1612309' date='Jul 30 2008, 12:47 AM']It can be found in the _The Catechism Explained_[/quote]

Don't think I've ever heard of this book... I've always trusted the Catechism includes most everything a Catholic needs to know and wouldn't need an explanation because, well, it's a catechism. At least I've always thought a catechism was intended to stand on it's own, unlike Scripture or any particular Church theologian's writing.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612309' date='Jul 30 2008, 12:47 AM']Here are some examples:

The following is taken from: [url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/search?q=classifications"]http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/search?q=classifications[/url]
[color="#0000FF"][b]
3. Truths to be held with religious assent of intellect and will:[/b]

[i]Doctrina catholica[/i] (Catholic doctrine): a truth which is taught in the entire Church, but is not always infallibly proposed: viz., those things which the Roman Pontiffs explicitly desire to teach in encyclicals: e.g., the doctrines on the Sacred Liturgy in Pius XII's Mediator Dei. The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in doctrina catholica (error in Catholic doctrine).

[i]Theologice certa[/i] (a truth that is theologically certain): a truth which was acknowledged “in the theological schools” as certain and having a necessary logical connection with Revelation; such connection may be virtual, or presupositive, or final: e.g., "Christ posessed the beatific vision while on earth, even before his death and resurrection." The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in theologia (error in theology).

[i]Ita tenenda, ut contraria sit temeraria[/i] (a doctrine that is to be held, such that the contrary is temerary): a truth proposed by the Roman Congregations, which nevertheless does not enjoy the special approval of the Roman Pontiff: e.g., “The first Gospel was written by the apostle St. Matthew.” The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called doctrina temeraria (temerary doctrine).

[b]4. Doctrines that are to be respected and revered:[/b]

[i]Sententia communis, certa in theologia[/i] (a common doctrine, a doctrine that is certain in theology): a doctrine that is proposed “in the schools” by the common consensus of theologians (i.e., in pontifical faculties of theologians, prior to 1962, when their orthodoxy was carefully safeguarded) as “well founded”: e.g., “Grace presupposes and perfects nature.” The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called falsa in theologia, vel temeraria, vel scholis catholicis injuriosa (false in theology, or temerary, or injurious to catholic schools).

[i]Sententia pia[/i] (pious doctrine): a doctrine which is not theologically exact, but which communicates well the piety and sentiments of the faithful: e.g., “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost.” A truth that is contrary to this level of catholic truth is called scandalosa seu male sonans seu offensiva piarum aurium (scandalous, or bad-sounding, or offensive to pious ears).[/color]
I'm afraid you're wrong. You can't simply disregard teachings that are at least over a millenia old and are found in the writings of Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Saints, Catechisms, and various books concerning the subject.[/quote]

My understanding is all this is rooted in Scripture and Tradition, though. I know everything isn't explicit from these sources, but isn't it also true that there is no new revelation following the death of the apostles? How do people get this stuff about the tortures and gnashing of teeth in purgatory from Sacred Tradition?

[quote name='mortify' post='1612309' date='Jul 30 2008, 12:47 AM']The question is what basis you have for dissenting from this teaching, and it better be a good one![/quote]

I don't know if my take on purgatory is dissenting or not. My problem with what others in this thread are saying about purgatory is it sounds completely foreign to the dogma of salvation by grace alone, plus it doesn't seem to fit with the common sense that purgatory isn't Hell. Perhaps it will feel [i]like[/i] Hell relative to our current life, but I've said before that there is a world of difference between healing pain and torturous pain. God doesn't torture us, so why would there be torture in purgatory?

At any rate, the only reason I can give is that I've trusted the Catechism to provide any doctrinal knowledge that I should need.

Edited July 30, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']If the capacity to sense doesn't come from the Soul, then how will the Souls in hell or purgatory suffer **prior** to the resurrection? Clearly, the soul must have the capacity to sense. The fact that contemporary science has illuminated our understanding of our *body's* means of sensation does not mean there is a contradiction with what St Thomas said.[/quote]

I agree that we will be capable of experiencing pain, but St. Thomas said our "entire capacity to sense" comes from our souls. We know that isn't true. Our physical capacity to sense comes from our bodies, specifically the nervous system. Without a body, there is no physical pain.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']Pain on earth is different because it's mitigated through the body. In the afterlife, the pain will be DIRECTED to our Soul. The latter will be a pain like we've never experienced before, and it will be far worse because it will reach our innermost being.[/quote]

This makes sense to me.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']There are many problems with this statement, sufficient to say the conclusion is false because we don't have to accept that humans and animals experience pain the same way.[/quote]

So if dog bites another dog, it's going to feel different from a dog biting a person?

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']What's your point? "Temporal" simply means it's temporary, doesn't mean it has to be "worldly." The fact is the soul experiences temporal punishment even before the Resurrection.[/quote]

My point is there is nothing in the Catechism about sense-punishment in purgatory. If this is, in fact, a part of purgatory, why isn't it included there?

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']You can't IMAGINE the pain of being separated from God. It's NOTHING like spouses separating from each other![/quote]

How is it nothing like spouses separated from each other? If husbands are icons of Christ and wives are icons of the Church, the two love each other fully and completely, but are separated then they are experiencing a pain that results from love (they might even describe it as "torture"). How does that not help us imagine purgatory?

This analogy shows us the difference between the torture that comes from Love, namely God, versus the torture that comes from Selfishness, and the prince of all prideful spirits, Satan. Nobody wants to experience either form of torture, but we would all prefer the former because there we at least have the consolation of being in Love. It would still hurt like hell, but not in the same way that loneliness and selfishness will torment us.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']Here is a better analogy though still incomparable. Imagine if I chained you to a wall and starved you until you were skin and bones. Then I bring out a table with the most delicious assortment of food just out of your reach! You can smell the savory food but you can't take it! Meditate on this type of pain![/quote]

The problem with this analogy is eating any significant amount of food after severe starvation is deadly. This happened to a lot of people after they were freed from Nazi concentration camps. Plus, there is no way I can love food like I could love a wife. Spousal love was created by God to be the closest image on earth of divine love, thus I still think the previous analogy is better.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']This type of statement reflects the pride of modern man. The fact that St Thomas lived in the 13th century means nothing. Our greatest thinkers are like mental midgets compared to the Angelic Doctor![/quote]

So, there is no need whatsoever to consider the time St. Thomas lived when reading him? I'm not putting him down by any means. I just don't think we can copy writings from even 100 years ago, much less several centuries, and paste them into 2008 without considering differences in culture, development of scientific and doctrinal knowledge, languages and translation, etc.

[quote name='mortify' post='1612334' date='Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM']It had absolutely nothing to do with when human life begins. Conception in the theological understanding takes place when the soul is created out of nothing and is unified with the body. Whether this happens at the moment of the zygote's formation or a certain period of time after the zygote develops is IRRELEVANT. The dilemma some theologians had was how Mary could be free of original sin when original sin is universal. The solution to this came from the Holy Spirit and theology, NOT science![/quote]

What I remember reading is in addition to that question, there was also uncertainty about when exactly a zygote can be scientifically considered human, which was answered through development of genetic science, and thus we know that at fertilization the zygote is fully human. If we were not human at conception, there couldn't be an Immaculate Conception since there would be no soul to be preserved from original sin.

[Deb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1611033' date='Jul 28 2008, 08:24 PM']Being a former Protestant, I prefer to steer clear of wording like "make up" because it implies we believe we must perform some works to get into Heaven. Fact is, we can't do anything in purgatory. We can't even pray there. Whatever happens there is God's work, just as it should be on earth.[/quote]


You are misinformed. The souls in purgatory can pray for us, they can not merit for themselves however. When we state that we believe in the communion of saints in the creed, we are including all the dead, including those in purgatory. They are not in full communion with Christ as those in heaven but, they can still pray.

Cathecism 958 states: [i]Communion with the dead.[/i] "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p5.htm#500"]500[/url][/sup] [b]Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.

[/b]962 states: "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, [b]the dead who are being purified[/b], and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (Paul VI, [i]CPG[/i] § 30).


If you are now Catholic, you must know that Faith alone does not get you into heaven but also your actions or works here on earth.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Deb' post='1612448' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:42 AM']If you are now Catholic, you must know that Faith alone does not get you into heaven but also your actions or works here on earth.[/quote]

I know that part. I didn't know souls in purgatory could pray though. Could've sworn I read somewhere that they can't pray or anything. Hmm... weird.

Thanks for the correction.

Edited July 30, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Deb]

I was actually looking into that once after I had been told by a visionary that the souls in purgatory were praying for me. I always knew we should pray for them to aid them in being united in Christ so I was surprised that they could also intercede for me through prayer.

[mortify]

Peace,

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1612410' date='Jul 30 2008, 07:39 AM']Don't think I've ever heard of this book...[/quote]

That's unfortunate, it's a Catholic classic that has been republished numerous times since 1899.
[quote]I've always trusted the Catechism includes most everything a Catholic needs to know and wouldn't need an explanation because, well, it's a catechism. At least I've always thought a catechism was intended to stand on it's own, unlike Scripture or any particular Church theologian's writing.[/quote]

What's being explained is the Catechism of Trent which was intended for *Priests*. The explanations help folks like me understand something meant for clergy.
[quote]My understanding is all this is rooted in Scripture and Tradition, though.[/quote]

The point is we must accept *more* than what is explicitly defined by Popes and Councils.
[quote]I know everything isn't explicit from these sources, but isn't it also true that there is no new revelation following the death of the apostles?[/quote]

I would say yes, but the Deposit of Faith is like a seed that eventually sprouts into a tree. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in developing and maturing what has been revealed.
[quote]How do people get this stuff about the tortures and gnashing of teeth in purgatory from Sacred Tradition?[/quote]

I'm not aware of any specific tortures in purgatory, only that purgation in the afterlife will be more painful than anything experienced on earth.
[quote]I don't know if my take on purgatory is dissenting or not.[/quote]

In my opinion your attitude towards certain teachings is condescending, but God knows best.
[quote]My problem with what others in this thread are saying about purgatory is it sounds completely foreign to the dogma of salvation by grace alone, plus it doesn't seem to fit with the common sense that purgatory isn't Hell.[/quote]
How is it foreign to believing in salvation by grace alone?

Purgatory isn't as bad as hell, but it's worse than anything that can be experienced on earth.
[quote]Perhaps it will feel [i]like[/i] Hell relative to our current life, but I've said before that there is a world of difference between healing pain and torturous pain. God doesn't torture us, so why would there be torture in purgatory?[/quote]

I'm not sure what will be in purgatory, I'm just confident the pain will be more intense than any of us can imagine, and in this sense it can be considered "torturous."

[mortify]

Peace,

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1612434' date='Jul 30 2008, 08:12 AM']I agree that we will be capable of experiencing pain, but St. Thomas said our "entire capacity to sense" comes from our souls. We know that isn't true. Our physical capacity to sense comes from our bodies, specifically the nervous system. Without a body, there is no physical pain.[/quote]

This is like attributing a letter to a pen and not to a person. The latter has the entire capacity to write, the former is only an instrument that permits this to happen, in of itself it can do nothing. Likewise, the body without a soul is dead and can't sense anything. The body allows the soul to use its sense capacity in the material plane.

Ultimately the union between soul and body is a mystery.

[quote]This makes sense to me.[/quote]

It's exactly what St Thomas said.
[quote]So if dog bites another dog, it's going to feel different from a dog biting a person?[/quote]

I don't know, but if dogs don't see or hear the world the same way we do why can't they feel pain differently? And this is not even factoring in the fact that dogs don't have souls.

[quote]My point is there is nothing in the Catechism about sense-punishment in purgatory. If this is, in fact, a part of purgatory, why isn't it included there?[/quote]

How can there be punishment if there is no "sense-punishment"? I guess I don't understand your distinction between the two.

The contemporary Catechism focuses more on the existence of purgatory than the quality of the pain therein. I believe this is for an ecumenical reason.

[quote]How is it nothing like spouses separated from each other? If husbands are icons of Christ and wives are icons of the Church, the two love each other fully and completely, but are separated then they are experiencing a pain that results from love (they might even describe it as "torture"). How does that not help us imagine purgatory?[/quote]

It's not helpful because the pain spouses experience during brief separation is TRIVIAL compared to a soul's separation from God.

The pain is related, among other things, to the absence of what we desire. The more we desire what we don't have the greater the pain. The soul after death will become aware of God to a degree it never did on earth, the beauty and love towards one's spouse is INFINITELY INFERIOR to the SUPREME and INFINITE Goodness, Beauty, and Love of God. Our mind can't comprehend how great and good God is, how much we will desire Him. How sad we will be when we finally realize we spent so much time chasing what can't even compare to the Supreme Good that is God! We will desire God like we've desired nothing before! The starving souls in concentration camps didn't experience such a desire for food as we will desire for God! The pain will be intense, and greater sadness will come when we realize we are the reason why we aren't with Him already!
[quote]So, there is no need whatsoever to consider the time St. Thomas lived when reading him? I'm not putting him down by any means. I just don't think we can copy writings from even 100 years ago, much less several centuries, and paste them into 2008 without considering differences in culture, development of scientific and doctrinal knowledge, languages and translation, etc.[/quote]

If anything St Thomas' time and culture permitted him to delve deeper into the Faith than we can in this current Dark Age. The point is St Thomas' expounding of the faith isn't wrong simply because it was thought centuries ago. Sound reasoning doesn't sour over time!

[quote]What I remember reading is in addition to that question, there was also uncertainty about when exactly a zygote can be scientifically considered human, which was answered through development of genetic science, and thus we know that at fertilization the zygote is fully human. If we were not human at conception, there couldn't be an Immaculate Conception since there would be no soul to be preserved from original sin.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood something, because how can it be denied that a zygote is human? Humans beget humans, this has been known for a long time.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1613369' date='Jul 30 2008, 09:33 PM']I would say yes, but the Deposit of Faith is like a seed that eventually sprouts into a tree. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in developing and maturing what has been revealed.[/quote]

I understand that. However, when it comes to a private revelations about purgatory or anything else, my understanding is we are not required to believe it precisely because everything we must believe comes from public revelation, which is restricted to the apostolic age. Doctrine develops over time, but all development is based on the same public revelation. Maybe that's oversimplified... I tend to do that because I'm not a detail-oriented person.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613369' date='Jul 30 2008, 09:33 PM']I'm not aware of any specific tortures in purgatory, only that purgation in the afterlife will be more painful than anything experienced on earth.[/quote]

That's how at least a few people have described it, specifically as torture, and I've never read any explanation as to the nature of this torture. Just read this thread... it's endless "woe is me, I'm gonna suffer forever in purgatory on beds of hot coals..." Where are these extreme pictures of purgatorial punishment supported by Scripture and Tradition (i.e. not private revelation)?

[quote name='mortify' post='1613369' date='Jul 30 2008, 09:33 PM']How is it foreign to believing in salvation by grace alone?[/quote]

Because it seems to walk a very fine line that is easily misunderstood (when not properly and carefully explained) as suffering and working for one's own salvation rather than relying on grace to redeem our suffering.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613369' date='Jul 30 2008, 09:33 PM']Purgatory isn't as bad as hell, but it's worse than anything that can be experienced on earth.
I'm not sure what will be in purgatory, I'm just confident the pain will be more intense than any of us can imagine, and in this sense it can be considered "torturous."[/quote]

This at least seems reasonable. What's offended me is that we almost had a contest going on here to see who here -- in all their humility -- thinks they deserve the most time in purgatory with the worst suffering and burning, wretched pains beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Much of it sounded very disingenuous to me, not to mention the fact that it's practically pointless to speculate on this topic to begin with. A discussion on the actual Church teaching about purgatory would bear a lot more fruit than our speculations on how much "time" we'll there.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']This is like attributing a letter to a pen and not to a person. The latter has the entire capacity to write, the former is only an instrument that permits this to happen, in of itself it can do nothing. Likewise, the body without a soul is dead and can't sense anything. The body allows the soul to use its sense capacity in the material plane.[/quote]

Is this a Church teaching we are required to believe or assent to, or is it simply speculation about how the body and soul might be related? Because I'm still hung up on how animals have the capacity for physical sensation without having souls.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']It's exactly what St Thomas said.[/quote]

True, but was he always right? Surely there are a few things he wrote that he either changed his mind about or the Church has since declared false.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']I don't know, but if dogs don't see or hear the world the same way we do why can't they feel pain differently?[/quote]

Not sure what you mean... nearly all animals and humans see and hear the world through a network of nerves that connects to a spine going up to their brain. This gives us the capacity for physical sensation. The soul by itself will perceive sensation differently, just as angels don't see and hear the world like we do. I presume that is left up to mystery.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']How can there be punishment if there is no "sense-punishment"? I guess I don't understand your distinction between the two.[/quote]

If I'm understanding what St. Thomas meant by sense-punishment, it is perceived through physical sensation, and physical sensation requires a physical body. Souls in purgatory don't have eyes, skin, ears, nose, and a tongue to sense things the way we do, so it must be something other than sense-punishment that they endure. That doesn't mean it won't be suffering, but a different kind of suffering that what we know in our current physical existence, just as the suffering of heartbreak or separation from a loved one is different from being whipped or dying of cancer.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']It's not helpful because the pain spouses experience during brief separation is TRIVIAL compared to a soul's separation from God.[/quote]

Of course. However, my analogy didn't specify a brief separation. Being separated for many years would be a little bit more accurate. As trivial as it is, what in this world can come closer to our love for God than spousal love? Only spousal love makes two people into one and brings forth new life while imaging the Trinity. My love for nourishment after severe starvation is trivial compared to that. So as trivial as it may be, I don't know how you can find a better analogy than what God created.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']The pain is related, among other things, to the absence of what we desire. The more we desire what we don't have the greater the pain. The soul after death will become aware of God to a degree it never did on earth, the beauty and love towards one's spouse is INFINITELY INFERIOR to the SUPREME and INFINITE Goodness, Beauty, and Love of God. Our mind can't comprehend how great and good God is, how much we will desire Him. How sad we will be when we finally realize we spent so much time chasing what can't even compare to the Supreme Good that is God! We will desire God like we've desired nothing before! The starving souls in concentration camps didn't experience such a desire for food as we will desire for God! The pain will be intense, and greater sadness will come when we realize we are the reason why we aren't with Him already![/quote]

Okay, but this is all very subjective. You're not saying anything about flames, scorching heat, gnashing of teeth, and all the other crazy stuff I've seen others say about purgatory. Apparently some saints had private revelations of purgatory being like that. I haven't read them for myself, but in every purgatory thread on phatmass, someone quotes a saint who received such a revelation. Do you believe those revelations literally, or were their metaphorical, or is it possible that those saints misunderstood or misinterpreted their revelation?

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']If anything St Thomas' time and culture permitted him to delve deeper into the Faith than we can in this current Dark Age. The point is St Thomas' expounding of the faith isn't wrong simply because it was thought centuries ago. Sound reasoning doesn't sour over time![/quote]

My only point is that he didn't have the knowledge about the world that we have today, so some of his conclusions might be based on reasoning that was perfectly valid in his day, but is not valid today. He's one of the greatest saints and theologians in Church history, and one of the greatest thinkers of all time, but he was still a sinner limited by his physical existence in a particular place a time. He didn't know everything, he still went to Confession, and he especially never had the grace of infallibility.

[quote name='mortify' post='1613437' date='Jul 30 2008, 10:28 PM']I think you misunderstood something, because how can it be denied that a zygote is human? Humans beget humans, this has been known for a long time.[/quote]

From what I remember reading (and guess I need to relocate the source), there was uncertainty in the medical/scientific community at that time as to whether a zygote is immediately human or if it develops into a human while passing through simpler "less than human" life forms. Sounds ridiculous now, and I remember thinking that when I read it, but we're talking about a time when doctors would bleed patients to get the "bad blood" out of them. It's no insult against them; the knowledge we take for granted today had yet to be discovered.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1614009' date='Jul 31 2008, 11:17 AM']I understand that. However, when it comes to a private revelations about purgatory or anything else, my understanding is we are not required to believe it precisely because everything we must believe comes from public revelation, which is restricted to the apostolic age. Doctrine develops over time, but all development is based on the same public revelation. Maybe that's oversimplified... I tend to do that because I'm not a detail-oriented person.[/quote]

That the pains in purgatory outweigh those on earth is based not on private revelation but on reasonable deductions from what is revealed in Scripture and Tradition.
[quote]That's how at least a few people have described it, specifically as torture, and I've never read any explanation as to the nature of this torture. Just read this thread... it's endless "woe is me, I'm gonna suffer forever in purgatory on beds of hot coals..." Where are these extreme pictures of purgatorial punishment supported by Scripture and Tradition (i.e. not private revelation)?[/quote]

I'm not aware of any specific tortures other than a fire unlike the fire on earth.
[quote]Because it seems to walk a very fine line that is easily misunderstood (when not properly and carefully explained) as suffering and working for one's own salvation rather than relying on grace to redeem our suffering.[/quote]

My understanding is there must be a cooperation with God's grace. Protestants seem to think any cooperation would diminish God's work on the Cross and therefore it's better to think we have no role in our own salvation. Christ made it clear, we must carry our own Cross and follow Him. When a Christian willingly and knowingly sins there is a guilt that demands satisfaction, and it's not always completely resolved after absolution. Does this mean Christ's sacrifice was imperfect? No, it only means we are responsible for our actions. We must do what we can, and we certainly can satisfy for our own sins.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1614117' date='Jul 31 2008, 12:24 PM']Is this a Church teaching we are required to believe or assent to, or is it simply speculation about how the body and soul might be related? Because I'm still hung up on how animals have the capacity for physical sensation without having souls.[/quote]

I'm not sure, but there is a danger of falling into materialism if you reject the idea that the soul senses through the body.

There are robots that can react to stimuli but this doesn't mean they also possess a soul. Animals can be likened to advanced robots, but perhaps they have some spark or spirit that differs from a soul. I really don't know.

[quote]True, but was he always right? Surely there are a few things he wrote that he either changed his mind about or the Church has since declared false.[/quote]

He's only human, it's not like every minute detail of the Summa is absolutely correct, however we have to remember the Pope placed the Summa on the Altar while performing mass, this signifies the dignity and value of St Thomas' writings. I think the most part, especially in terms of substance, what he wrote stands the test of time.

[quote]Not sure what you mean... nearly all animals and humans see and hear the world through a network of nerves that connects to a spine going up to their brain. This gives us the capacity for physical sensation. The soul by itself will perceive sensation differently, just as angels don't see and hear the world like we do. I presume that is left up to mystery.[/quote]

It's said dogs see in black and white and have a greater sense of hearing and smell, perhaps the sense of pain is different or not to the degree of ours. They certainly can't appreciate pain the way we do.

[quote]If I'm understanding what St. Thomas meant by sense-punishment, it is perceived through physical sensation, and physical sensation requires a physical body. Souls in purgatory don't have eyes, skin, ears, nose, and a tongue to sense things the way we do, so it must be something other than sense-punishment that they endure. That doesn't mean it won't be suffering, but a different kind of suffering that what we know in our current physical existence, just as the suffering of heartbreak or separation from a loved one is different from being whipped or dying of cancer.[/quote]

If its possible for the soul to experience pain on earth it's possible for it to feel in the afterlife. How can this be? There may be a medium that the soul will unify with to sense the spiritual fire, perhaps that medium is the fire itself! We really don't know, but it's not impossible, and there is basis for it in Scripture and the writings of many Western *and* Eastern Fathers.

[quote]Of course. However, my analogy didn't specify a brief separation. Being separated for many years would be a little bit more accurate. As trivial as it is, what in this world can come closer to our love for God than spousal love? Only spousal love makes two people into one and brings forth new life while imaging the Trinity. My love for nourishment after severe starvation is trivial compared to that. So as trivial as it may be, I don't know how you can find a better analogy than what God created.[/quote]

Friend, the unfortunate reality is the overwhelming majority of us who are saved will know what the pain of purgatory is. Sufficient to say it will be worse than anything we can imagine.
[quote]Okay, but this is all very subjective. You're not saying anything about flames, scorching heat, gnashing of teeth, and all the other crazy stuff I've seen others say about purgatory. Apparently some saints had private revelations of purgatory being like that. I haven't read them for myself, but in every purgatory thread on phatmass, someone quotes a saint who received such a revelation. Do you believe those revelations literally, or were their metaphorical, or is it possible that those saints misunderstood or misinterpreted their revelation?[/quote]

I'm not aware of any specific punishments, nor am I relying on any private revelation.

I am only aware of a fire that is unlike any fire we know. I don't see anything reasonable to suggest this fire is pure metaphor, but God knows best.

[quote]My only point is that he didn't have the knowledge about the world that we have today, so some of his conclusions might be based on reasoning that was perfectly valid in his day, but is not valid today. He's one of the greatest saints and theologians in Church history, and one of the greatest thinkers of all time, but he was still a sinner limited by his physical existence in a particular place a time. He didn't know everything, he still went to Confession, and he especially never had the grace of infallibility.[/quote]

This is all true, but there are many spiritual things about him that permitted him to delve into the depths of Revealed Truth in a way we can't.

Edited August 1, 2008 by mortify

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1614708' date='Aug 1 2008, 12:10 AM']I'm not sure, but there is a danger of falling into materialism if you reject the idea that the soul senses through the body.[/quote]

I suppose that comes with the whole unity-of-body-and-soul thing... whatever the body senses physically speaking is thus sensed by the soul spiritually.

There are robots that can react to stimuli but this doesn't mean they also possess a soul. Animals can be likened to advanced robots, but perhaps they have some spark or spirit that differs from a soul. I really don't know.

[quote name='mortify' post='1614708' date='Aug 1 2008, 12:10 AM']It's said dogs see in black and white and have a greater sense of hearing and smell, perhaps the sense of pain is different or not to the degree of ours. They certainly can't appreciate pain the way we do.[/quote]

Yeah, there are variations in the quality and sensitivity of the senses, but the basic bio-mechanical function remains the same. Animals probably have a greater tolerance for pain than we do in our comfortable middle-class lifestyles, but if you pet a cat and then step on its tail, you're going to get two very different reactions, and those reactions make sense based on our human experience with the senses.

[quote name='mortify' post='1614708' date='Aug 1 2008, 12:10 AM']If its possible for the soul to experience pain on earth it's possible for it to feel in the afterlife. How can this be? There may be a medium that the soul will unify with to sense the spiritual fire, perhaps that medium is the fire itself! We really don't know, but it's not impossible, and there is basis for it in Scripture and the writings of many Western *and* Eastern Fathers.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing about there being pain in purgatory. It wouldn't be much of a purgatory if there was't. I just don't buy into the literal interpretation of flames and tortures, or the wretched images we get from some private revelation. That kind of stuff makes it seem like everybody goes to Hell, but the saved only go for a little while. The pain of purgatory simply must be different from the pain of Hell.

[quote name='mortify' post='1614708' date='Aug 1 2008, 12:10 AM']I'm not aware of any specific punishments, nor am I relying on any private revelation.

I am only aware of a fire that is unlike any fire we know. I don't see anything reasonable to suggest this fire is pure metaphor, but God knows best.[/quote]

Well, maybe I'm overlooking something, but it doesn't seem like I have said anything that's incompatible with what you're saying. Bottom line is, the pain of separation from Love is the greatest pain anyone could ever experience. I've felt physical pain from a broken relationship, so I can only imagine how much greater separation from God might be like. I think anyone would gladly exchange the pain of not knowing love for all the physical pain in the world.

I'm not sure why you haven't taken issue with the idea of spending thousands of years in purgatory. That's definitely not Church teaching.