Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness

[Irish Hermit]

Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

Sources?

The Internet.  I pulled these figures together when I was on CAF a few years ago.  But a search won't bring up the message.  CAF deleted thousands of Orthodox messages at the time they booted most of us off there.  They had complaints that too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

So may I put the question to you.  You say you have learnt more in 3 years as a Catholic than any cradle Catholic -  What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?

There are actually CDF documents that address what is to be believed  by Catholics.

So why the not insignificant confusion among very well known Catholic apologists and writers!?  If they are ignorant in this important matter... well, it hardly bodes well for whatever else they are saying to the Catholic faithful.

[Irish Hermit]

If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux....

You'd have a bit more credibility if you could speak for yourself, rather than allowing others to speak for you....

PS: Catholics know what they believe and it is not what Father Ambrose says they believe. 

Catholics look at meaning.  Protestants tend to add meaning.

Father Ambrose grew up with the best of both and now cherry picks depending on his mood 

I think you are fishing for information about my early years.   I grew up with basically no contact with Protestantism.  It was simply forbidden.   It was even the days (do you remember this?) when it was forbidden and sinful to read a Protestant translation of the Bible.

My knowledge of Protestantism is abysmal and only piecemeal.

[akimel]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.  When you do so (and why haven't you already done so?!), you will discover crucial differences between what you believe the Catholic Church teaches on purgatory and what the Catholic Church is in fact presently teaching on purgatory. 

You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years. Prior to that you were a priest of the Episcopalian Church for 25 years. Now, if you wanted to speak about Anglicanism I would listen to you because of your knowledge and experience which extends over 25 years and no doubt longer than that.  I would not think that just because you converted to Roman Catholicism that 25 years of Anglican study, life and experience were expunged from your cranium.  I would expect you to be able to expound on Anglicanism.  You must be well acquainted with its doctrines and able to compare them to Roman Catholicism.

You are quite correct.  I am well acquainted with Anglican theology and am able to competently contrast Anglican theology with contemporary Roman Catholic theology.  But I was not an ordinary Anglican.  I am Anglo-Catholic trained and a graduate of Nashotah House.  I have been reading Catholic theology, both systematic and liturgical, for thirty-five years.  I have even been published in a Catholic academic journal.  This is why I can confidently declare, Fr Ambrose, that your representations of Catholic theology, particularly on key issues like purgatory, are severely flawed.  They are at best one-sided and at worst blatantly wrong.  You may have been raised a Catholic (at least so I have been told); but unfortunately you do not have a sound grasp of Catholicism.  This is why the Catholics who read this forum cannot recognize their faith in your construals of Catholic doctrine.  Anyone can quote from documents they find on the internet; but understanding what these documents mean within the context of a living religious community is quite a different matter.   

I am not trying to persuade anyone to become Catholic or dissuade anyone from becoming Orthodox.  This is where you and I differ.  I love Orthodoxy, but you look on Catholicism as an enemy of the true faith, as great an enemy, to quote your words, as Islam and Communism.  It is difficult to understand an enemy.  It is difficult to even want to understand an enemy.  And it is most certainly impossible, apart from the grace of Christ, to love your enemy.  If you honestly believe the Catholic Church to be your your enemy, then not only does it become increasingly impossible for you to speak truthfully about her but the temptation to misrepresent and distort her teachings and practices becomes almost irresistible.  As Fr Gregory Jensen recently wrote on his blog:

We cannot evangelize and reconcile to Christ those who we do not love. … Unfortunately some Orthodox Christians … have no love for the Catholic Church. The absence of love need not be the same as hate--though it often is. But the absence of love makes it impossible for us to speak convincingly about the Gospel.

Oh how spiritual destructive it is to name another as one's enemy.   As St Silouan remarked, "He who does not love his enemies, does not have God’s grace."

All I am asking from the Orthodox members of this forum is that they accurately represent contemporary Catholic teaching, without polemical distortion.  I do not think this is too much to ask.  I do not ask anyone to accept me as an authority on Catholicism.  As you point out, I have only been a Roman Catholic for a short time (specifically five years, not three) and though I passed the theological examinations for ordination, my comprehension of historic Catholic theology is severely limited by my lack of sympathy for and instruction in scholasticism.  Fortunately for me, however, the Catholic Church no longer ties itself to medieval scholastic formulation, as evidenced by the Catholic Catechism.  One does not need to be a Thomist in order to achieve a rudimentary grasp of Roman Catholic theology.  But do not take my word on these matters.  Read John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict.  If your understanding of Catholic doctrine conflicts with theirs, then you know that your understanding is most likely defective.         

[Irish Hermit]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.  

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.

I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

[Irish Hermit]

Oh how spiritual destructive it is to name another as one's enemy.   As St Silouan remarked, "He who does not love his enemies, does not have God’s grace."

Father, the history of Roman Catholicism in its contacts with Orthodox Christians has certainly seen it acting time and again as our enemy and pursuing our annihilation.

That does not prevent us loving Catholics as individuals and wishing them salvation.   It has always been the way of the Church to suffer in times of persecution but to make a major effort not to loose its grip on the Saviour's command to love our enemies..

There is something I like to quote and you may have seen it before, from Saint Gregory of Nazianzen

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren,
whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

[Irish Hermit]

If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux....

Absolutely logical.   

I may be right, I may be wrong, but the contrast between what I am saying from pre-Vatican II and what Fr Kimel is saying post-Vatican II is sure proof of changes in Catholic teaching.

[akimel]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.  

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.

I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past?  

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy?  

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.    

[stashko]

The Catholic Church Is Chasing After New Revelation ,even from questionable taiking Apparitions ,unknown to the ancient Holy Fathers Faith Once delivered....

It's so sad that the Catholic Saint's the Pillars of faith ,that lived and died for what they believed in, isn't relevant now,, The Only thing that Matters , is what is believed in the present....Out with the Old ...In with the New...

I've  said this before ,and its worth repeating ,The Catholic Church is sowing it own Demise.....


If  Catholic Faithful Of 1000 yrs, 500 yrs or even 200 yrs ago, were to appear in the present ,They wouldn't recognize their Catholic Church ,at all...this was mentioned before I Believe by Father Ambrose ,Instead they would feel more comfortable  in the Holy Orthodox Churches .......


Welcome Holy Catholic Saints ,To Holy Orthodoxy ,Upon Your Death, The veil Has Been Lifted ,all of your errors Have been corrected that you believed in ,when you lived on this earth...You have received the true faith And Light Of Holy Orthodoxy,Never Fear For Holy Orthodoxy will never Abandon you,but will love and Honor You till the end of time and beyond.......You'll never be Irrelevant...

[Schultz]

Well said, stashko.

Yes, that's right.  WELL SAID!   

[ICXCNIKA]

[/quote]
Their conversion was based on falsehood. Lord have mercy!
[/quote]

What you say here is shameful. Lord have mercy!, indeed.

The same could be said of your own conversion.

[FormerReformer]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.  

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.

I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past?  

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy?  

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.    

This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes.  Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?"  To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"

[elijahmaria]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.  

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.

I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

I have told you before, Father Ambrose, that you can copy the words but you do NOT comprehend the meanings and you impute meaning to the words that are not there.

There has been NO change in meaning on the teaching of purgatory in the Church.  

The words change to reflect historic patterns in metaphor and analogy.  The words change to reflect the bias for or against the capabilities of the laity to comprehend.  The words change to reflect regional historical conditions.  The words change to express one side or the other of the mercy/justice set of concepts...ect.

But you care little for any of this because ALL you can do is grasp words that are freighted with meaning for outsiders that do not belong to the words.  That is called polemics.

You are wrong about the meaning of purgatory and purgation in the Catholic Church and from what I have been able to determine over the years, you are wrong with great energy of purpose and contempt.

What you try to paint as a profound change in Catholic doctrine and dogmatics is NOT.  It only looks that way to those looking in from the outside and a hostile outside at that.

I thank God that not all Orthodox bishops do as you do.  And that is where the accords will come.  Not from me.  And blessedly not from you.  But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

Mary

[ICXCNIKA]

Fr Ambrose and others (even other romans) have listed several official statements that say exactly what they mean. Then you would have us believe that you have the authority to reinterpret them to a point that they have become null and void, therefore making (in your mind) no change in doctrine. If you don't agree with Florence then declare it a false council. If you don't agree with the past popes, theologians, and catechisms than repudiate them so that we can take you seriously. Until then any discussion is pointless. Does JP2 or Benedict XVI trump Florence?

[elijahmaria]

Fr Ambrose and others (even other romans) have listed several official statements that say exactly what they mean. Then you would have us believe that you have the authority to reinterpret them to a point that they have become null and void, therefore making (in your mind) no change in doctrine. If you don't agree with Florence then declare it a false council. If you don't agree with the past popes, theologians, and catechisms than repudiate them so that we can take you seriously. Until then any discussion is pointless. Does JP2 or Benedict XVI trump Florence?

Neither Benedict nor John Paul changed what was stated in Florence or Trent.  That is the flaw in what you are saying. 

If I tell you what temporal punishment means, you or Father Ambrose and others, will simply tell me that it is my opinion.  But that would not be true.  And that is where my primary concern lies in this so-called discussion.

My concern lies with meaning.  You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation.

So you can go on and on convincing yourself and others that you do, and I don't but that does not make it real. 

Mary

[ICXCNIKA]

"You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation"


Seriously, though you have no idea whether I am clueless or not. You know nothing about me period. Perhaps I am one of the numerous former romans...maybe I am a spy....or any other conjecture.

[Dave in McKinney]

It's so sad that the Catholic Saint's the Pillars of faith ,that lived and died for what they believed in, isn't relevant now,, The Only thing that Matters , is what is believed in the present....Out with the Old ...In with the New...

Is there a resource that would describe some of the changes with quotes?
Thanks.

[elijahmaria]

"You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation"


Seriously, though you have no idea whether I am clueless or not. You know nothing about me period. Perhaps I am one of the numerous former romans...maybe I am a spy....or any other conjecture.

Frankly, it means nothing to me to know your background.  

I have family members who don't know and could care less the meaning of temporal punishment.

To them...punishment is punishment.  Why translate it as "punishment" if it means something other than God inflicting punishments on his people?

Sound familiar?

The point is what the Church means and has meant over the ages and generations.  That is what is important.  And you won't find that out asking my cousin Sue.

If you really had some knowledge of what I am saying, we'd not be having this discussion, or you'd be supporting what I say and adding to it as Father Al and others have done or tried to do.

This issue has never been the words that Father Ambrose offers.  The issue has always been the meaning, which when I offer it, he rejects it in the most unctuous manner;  dismisses it as the ravings of a bright but surely deluded elijahmaria.

How many people here like or trust me well enough to over-ride that kind of assassination?

How many people would read the texts I might suggest to get a real feel for the teaching in the Church over time?

How honest is this so-called discussion really?

M.

[stanley123]

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

But has there been a change in the teaching of the Orthodox Church on slavery. For example, weren't the Roma (gypsies) widely held as slaves in Moldavia in the 14th or 15th century? And if the Orthodox Church was oposed to slavery, then how would one explain the class of slaves called  ţigani mănăstireşti ("Gypsies belonging to the monasteries"), who were the property of Romanian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox monasteries?
See: Will Guy, Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, University of Hertfordshire Press, Hatfield, 2001. ISBN 1902806077 p. 267
Neagu Djuvara, Între Orient şi Occident. Ţările române la începutul epocii moderne, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1995. ISBN 973-28-0523-4 p. 43, 44

[Schultz]

Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

[stashko]

Well said, stashko.

Yes, that's right.  WELL SAID!   

Sorry Schultz ,I didn't mean to shock You,,I Have to give Fr.Ambrose  All the credit, for my new outlook on things ,especally ,on the westen catholic Saints...

When ever Fr. Brings Up a western Saint especally a irish ones, he has great love for them,That gave me Food for thought, Plus he never condemed my former outlook towards them , but thur his post about the Western Saints ,started me to think how wrong i was about them .......A work in Progress I Am....

[ICXCNIKA]

Mary,

Where's the beef? You put forward your opinions, your interpretations, your conjecture. Fr Ambrose is nice enough to brush that aside and ask for evidence. Please show us a magesterial teaching from Rome. You are quick to tell Orthodox what they believe and when they refute it you talk about cloak and dagger type meetings with Orthodox Clergy and laity that of course agree with you(convenient). There must be an entire unorthodox underground movement! The council of Florence is definitive your opinions are not. I don't disagree with you that may not be the present teaching of Rome but then you have another problem on your hands.

[elijahmaria]

Mary,

Where's the beef? You put forward your opinions, your interpretations, your conjecture. Fr Ambrose is nice enough to brush that aside and ask for evidence. Please show us a magesterial teaching from Rome. You are quick to tell Orthodox what they believe and when they refute it you talk about cloak and dagger type meetings with Orthodox Clergy and laity that of course agree with you(convenient). There must be an entire unorthodox underground movement! The council of Florence is definitive your opinions are not. I don't disagree with you that may not be the present teaching of Rome but then you have another problem on your hands.

The point is what the Church means and has meant by the term "temporal punishments" over the ages and generations is not what some Orthodox faithful say it means.

This issue has never been the words that Father Ambrose offers.  The issue has always been the meaning, which when I offer it, he rejects it in the most unctuous manner;  dismisses it as the ravings of a bright but surely deluded elijahmaria.

How many people here like or trust me well enough to over-ride that kind of assassination?

How many people would read the texts I might suggest to get a real feel for the teaching in the Church over time?

How honest is this so-called discussion really?

M.

[ICXCNIKA]

So asking for evidence is now character assassanation? Or pehaps your last post has some hidden meaning which you alone can teach us. Sounds very gnostic to me.  You give your opinion and it might be possibly correct, but you are one of a billion people each with their own varying opinions. So that is why we would like something verify that your opinion is correct. So do you agree with the statements Council of Florence?

Or do you agree with Cardinal Husar: "Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith." 

[elijahmaria]

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments. 

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment. 

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

[stanley123]

Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today. 
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

[theistgal]

Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps we Catholics should not use this issue to beat the Eastern Orthodox with, since the majority of slaveholders in the southern U.S. were Catholic, and did not seem to be overly troubled in conscience about it:  http://www.jstor.org/pss/25025139

In the issue of chattel slavery, a lot of Christians were misguided.  We all have historical sins to atone for.

[stanley123]

Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps we Catholics should not use this issue to beat the Eastern Orthodox with, since the majority of slaveholders in the southern U.S. were Catholic, and did not seem to be overly troubled in conscience about it:  http://www.jstor.org/pss/25025139

In the issue of chattel slavery, a lot of Christians were misguided.  We all have historical sins to atone for.

Yes.
But the question concerned whether or not the E. Orthodox Church has ever changed its teaching.

[Schultz]

Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

The meaning of slavery itself in the United States and how it became an issue of race is a political issue which is couched in morality.  Of course it's wrong for someone to be enslaved because of their race.  This is a red herring and a ridiculous statement.  And, as far as I know, there was never a pronouncement from any Orthodox church which said that Africans should be allowed to be enslaved by white men simply for being Africans.  Do you know of any?  For me to answer such a question, you have to show that the Orthodox Church once said that it was okay for the "peculiar institution" of the South to exist or to continue to exist.

St. Paul apparently condoned slavery, as he told slaves to accept their lot in life.  Are you saying that St. Paul was wrong, theologically speaking?  

[Aindriú]

Can someone pass the popcorn? 

Seriously though, I've almost forgot what the topic is. What is the current issue? All I've seen for the past few posts is vague statements "that's not what it says!/yes it is!".

LOL.
My two cents: The RCC uses different language to define the same belief. They aren't changing their belief about purgatory. However, unlike Orthodox, they have a different culture/method to approaching the Divine. One of these approaches is to define the xxxxx out of everything. The belief (doctrine) doesn't change. What does change is how it is put into words.

Things that do change are ideas like Limbo. Being something that was popular, though never official, the Vatican does what it does (gives marching orders to the faith, ie this is the wrong direction, go this way), and perspective is (hopefully) brought back to orthodoxy.   

[elijahmaria]

This is where we left off on the actual topic under consideration:

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments. 

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment. 

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

[Irish Hermit]

My concern lies with meaning.  You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1472) defines "temporal punishment" as an unhealthy attachment to creatures.

So there you go -and you thought I didn't have a clue about the contemporary meaning of "temporal punishment."
 

[Irish Hermit]

But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am not anti-unionist.   I hope strongly for the union of our Churches.  But it cannot be achieved by doctrinal compromise or clever formulations which gloss over and disguise major doctrinal differences.  It can only come about by the complete acceptance by Roman Catholics of the orthodox faith.  Nothing less will suffice.

For that opinion I am quite prepared to answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am wondering if your Orthodox mentors whom you mention disagree with that?

[elijahmaria]

But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am not anti-unionist.   I hope strongly for the union of our Churches.  But it cannot be achieved by doctrinal compromise or clever formulations which gloss over and disguise major doctrinal differences.  It can only come about by the complete acceptance by Roman Catholics of the orthodox faith.  Nothing less will suffice.

For that opinion I am quite prepared to answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am wondering if your Orthodox mentors whom you mention disagree with that?

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists, all of whom thought and think that the Catholic Church must change because she is heretical.

quack-quack

Apparently you have nothing further of substance to add to what I posted as the Church's ancient teaching concerning temporal punishments.

It's been fun.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

[Irish Hermit]

Apparently you have nothing further of substance to add to what I posted as the Church's ancient teaching concerning temporal punishments.

I have given you the contemporary Catholic meaning of "temporal punishment."   It is an "unhealthy attachment to creatures" ~CCC1472.

I would not dare to proceed and point out how that is totally out of whack with the teachings pf previous Popes and Councils and tradition because you will simply whack me over the head and Fr Kimel will tell me that I am incapable of understanding the present and most up-to-date teaching.

[stanley123]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

[Irish Hermit]

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists,

I see.  So the Roman Catholic Church must be considered anti-unionist because it demands that the Orthodox make changes in their sacramental theology, their ecclesiology, etc, to suit the Roman Catholic Church.  Thanks for clarifying that.

[Irish Hermit]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

[stanley123]

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

I think that there was a need to change the acceptance of slavery, as one example. 

[stanley123]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

Interesting question.
I think that the CCC would be considered part of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC, which is authoritative and generally accepted, but non-infallible.

[elijahmaria]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

In Christ,

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists,

Presumably your Orthodox spiritual mentors are also "anti-unionist" or do they agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church has to change no part of her teachings and praxis to enter into union with Orthodoxy?

If that is the case I would be a little wary of such mentors and their grasp of Orthodoxy.

[Irish Hermit]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try. 

[Irish Hermit]

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.

I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines. 

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past? 

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy? 

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   

This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes.  Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?"  To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"

BINGO!

[stanley123]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try. 

I think that Father Kimel says that there has been a "clarification" and a "reinterpretation" of the doctrine of Purgatory: "During the past fifty years a significant clarification of the doctrine of Purgatory has occurred. Moving away from the juridical categories in which the doctrine has typically been expressed, Catholic theologians have sought to interpret the doctrine in personalist terms that more adequately express the encounter between sinners and the God who is a trinitarian community of love. If one looks closely, one can see signs of this reinterpretation in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of Pope John Paul II—specifically coalescing around the notion of “temporal punishment for sin.” "
See "Clarifying Purgatory"
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/clarifying-purgatory/