I'm still a little confused on chastisement, but I guess it is something like "castigo" in Italian. Still I don't approve the concept. I don't approve the definition of purgatory as a third state, as it contradicts the parable of Lazarus. Jesus indicated only the bosom of Abraham (now paradise) and hades as two distinct places. Even the idea to distinguish between those in hades who are purging and are aware of their final salvation, and those in hades who are tormented and aware of their damnation, sounds to me a little strange. I prefer to believe that purification is offered to all through the fire of hades (the same supernatural fire experienced by the rich man), even if some of them will never be purified at all.
Well, then I really don't see what your objection is. Your own explanation of your belief does not contradict anything of the dogma
of Purgatory at all. First, approaching it from your perspective as a Latin, the Latin Church does not claim to know who is going to hell - only God knows that. That is why one of the Eucharistic Prayers of the Latin Liturgy (I forget the number) is a general prayer for the dead, and not just the righteous.
Second, you say you don't approve that there is a third state, yet simultaneously admit that hades exists.
Hades certainly is not eternal bliss ("heaven") nor eternal damnation ("hell"). No matter how you cut it, that's a "third state" brother.
Third, perhaps (just perhaps) you are stuck in your prior Latin understanding of Purgatory as a "place" instead of a "state." The idea, as you have expressed your belief in, that purification can occur in Hades seems - to me anyway - to match up with the idea of Purgatory. The dogma
of Purgatory does not claim there is a certain "place" for the righteous, and a certain "place" for reprobates. It simply states that the purification or perfection of the souls of the righteous DOES IN FACT STILL OCCUR in the afterlife. THAT's IT.
It doesn't even dogmatize the idea that ONLY the righteous will experience purifying fires. Actually, it's completely possible that those who WE think are "reprobate" will really - in GOD's EYES - be counted among the "righteous." The dogma of Purgatory doesn't make any statement on the matter either way. To repeat, all that the dogma states is that the righteous CAN still experience purification or perfection after death. THAT's IT.
of Purgatory does not make any positive or negative statement about ANYTHING else (aside from the fact that the prayers and suffrages of the Church, especially the Holy Sacrifice, redounds to the benefit of these souls).
The problem - i repeat - is having an official doctrine on something no-one of the Church Fathers dared to explain and dogmatize such as life after death. If a non-belief in purgatory were an heresy, there would have been attempts by the Church to clarify the dogma and put heresy to rest long before you introduced it in your official doctrine.
So far, your expressed belief does not seem to contradict anything of the dogma
of Purgatory, as distinct from the several undefined pious beliefs you have mentioned. Would it be correct to say that your only real objection then is that it has been dogmatized? That souls can experience purification after death seems to be a UNANIMOUS
belief of the early Church. Are you saying that it is OK now for individuals to reject this teaching? Personally, the obligation of Sacred Tradition itself would have been sufficient for me to believe in what the Catholic Church calls Purgatory. It was only dogmatized because the Protestants were denying it. But even without the dogmatization, its unanimous existence in Sacred Tradition would be sufficient to impose an obligation of assent of faith on the matter for any apostolic Christian.