Notes on Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc

A significant part of the debates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence was dedicated to the question of purgatory and more generally of the forgiveness of sins after death. Both Latins and Greeks agreed that there are Christians who belong to the so-called ‘middle state’ and who, assisted by the suffrages of the Church, will in due course join the group of the saved. But they disagreed as to how these souls will attain to salvation. The Latins emphasized divine justice, punishment, and satisfaction. Divine justice demands that those who have failed to offer full satisfaction for sins forgiven in this life will have to go through fiery punishment in purgatory, until due satisfaction is eventually offered. The Greeks, on the other hand, emphasized God’s love and forgiveness. They repudiated the idea of purgatory and of material fire burning (immaterial) souls, and rejected the Latin view that souls are punished for sins already forgiven. They argued that the souls of people who die with unforgiven minor sins will experience spiritual sufferings in the afterlife, which, however, are not divine punishments but self-inflicted consequences of these sins. These souls will eventually be purified and saved thanks to God’s love and forgiveness.   ... The Latin position, stated [in the Council of Florence] in detailed and unambiguous terms, deserves some attention. Forgiveness does not refer to the damage and the stain that sin causes to the soul, but only to the punishment that is due to it. Purgatory, therefore, is not a place where souls are cleansed and healed in order to reach the spiritual maturity that is necessary for entering heaven. It is only a place of punishment and torture for sins already forgiven. [...]

In spite of their differences, however, Latins and Greeks agreed on two fundamental points. First, there is an intermediate state of souls that are, as it were, in between Heaven and Hell. Second, the prayers, the liturgies, and the suffrages in general of the Church contribute to their salvation.

Nevertheless, it is clear that Greeks and Latins disagreed on why and how these souls are purified and led to salvation. The Latins put forward a metaphysical principle that emphasized divine justice, which demands the punishment of sinners who had already been forgiven, for the sake of satisfaction.  [...] The Latins understood purgation mainly as a punitive process by means of material fire, at the end of which divine justice is satisfied and the soul is at long last allowed to enter Paradise. In this context, the suffrages of the Christians must be understood as vicarious offerings of satisfaction, which thus reduce the amount of time the souls of the deceased will have to spend in purgatory. The highly controversial Latin doctrine of indulgences fits in very well within this theological system.

The Greeks approached the matter from a different angle.  As André de Halleux has argued, they reacted ‘against a scholastic theology that the Latins presented as the faith of the Church’.  Although they repeatedly referred to divine justice,  their emphasis was on divine love, purification, and forgiveness. They understood the sufferings of the souls not as divine punishments, but rather as self-inflicted consequences of sin. They believed that through their painful afterlife experiences the souls are purged and forgiven by divine love, with the assistance of the prayers and in general the suffrages of the Church. [...]

In commenting on the Latin view, Jugie has argued that a soul in purgatory is like a prisoner.  It is sent to serve a certain amount of time in it, and, after this, it is almost automatically released and transferred to Paradise. But according to Mark, Jugie continues, although there is a purification of the souls thanks to their afterlife pains, release comes only from God, from outside, ab extrinseco.  Jugie’s remark is correct. For the Latins, punishment comes from God, whereas release comes by itself. For the Greeks, punishment comes by itself, being a consequence of sin, whereas forgiveness and release from punishment come only from God. The two approaches are clearly different. The Latin emphasis is on God’s justice and punishment. The Greek emphasis is on God’s love and forgiveness.

The examination of the Latin and Greek texts on purgatory at the Council of Ferrara – Florence has led me to the conclusion that the following remarks by John Meyendorff are not far off the mark:

The debate [on purgatory] between Greeks and Latins, in which Mark was the main Greek spokesman, showed a radical difference of perspective. While the Latins took for granted their legalistic approach to divine justice – which, according to them, requires a retribution for every sinful act – the Greeks interpreted sin less in terms of the acts committed than in terms of a moral and spiritual disease which was to be healed by divine forbearance and love. […] Legalism, which applied to individual human destiny the Anselmian doctrine of ‘satisfaction’, is the ratio theologica of the Latin doctrine on purgatory. For Mark of Ephesus, however, salvation is communion and ‘deification’.

And as a representative of the ‘Latin’ side has further claimed in commenting on earlier controversies on purgatory, ‘Byzantine soteriology is conceived less as satisfactory than as deifying and liberating, as recreating the disfigured image and liberating man from slavery to the elements of the world’.

The Greek views on purgatory presented a powerful challenge to the medieval Roman Catholic penitential system, its projection into the afterlife, and the theology that underpinned them. Mark and the Greeks did their best in order to be heard by the Latins. But they were not.  With regard to the doctrines of satisfaction, purgatory, and indulgences, the stakes for the Latins were by then very high.  The Latin Church had developed a fully-fledged penitential system, which extended its power to both this world and the next.  [...]

So, the Latin views on purgatory that the Greeks challenged at the unionist Council of Ferrara – Florence stand behind the emergence of Protestantism and the subsequent, and probably irreversible, destruction of the unity of Western Christianity. In the words of Le Goff, ‘thanks to Purgatory the Church developed the system of indulgences, a source of great power and profit, until it became a dangerous weapon that was ultimately turned back against the Church’.  Even Gill had to admit that ‘the Council of Florence made the Reformation inevitable’.

Source: Love, Purification, and Forgiveness versus Justice, Punishment, and Satisfaction: The Debates on Purgatory and the Forgiveness of Sins at the Council of Ferrara – Florence by Demetrios Bathrellos

* * *

See also a superb discussion of the Homilies refuting the purgatorial fire given by St. Mark of Ephesus at this same Synod: The Soul After Death, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, App. I, pp. 196-213. Here are Fr. Seraphim's introductory remarks on these homilies:

The Orthodox teaching on the state of souls after death is one that is often not fully understood, even by Orthodox Christians themselves; and the comparatively late Latin teaching of "purgatory" has caused further confusion in people's minds. The Orthodox doctrine itself, however, is not at all ambiguous or imprecise. Perhaps the most concise Orthodox exposition of it is to be found in the writings of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence in 1439, composed precisely in order to answer the Latin teaching on "purgatory." These writings are especially valuable to us in that coming as they do from the last of the Byzantine Fathers, before the modern era with all its theological confusions, they both point us to the sources of the Orthodox doctrine and instruct us how to approach and understand these sources. These sources are: Scripture, Patristic homilies, church services, Lives of Saints, and certain revelations and visions of life after death, such as those contained in Book IV of the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great.
Today's academic theologians tend to mistrust the latter two or three kinds of sources, which is why they are often uneasy when speaking on this subject and sometimes prefer to keep an "agnostic reticence" with regard to it (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 259). St. Marks writings, on the other hand, show us how much "at home" with these sources genuine Orthodox theologians are; those who are "uncomfortable" with them perhaps reveal thereby an unsuspected infection with modern unbelief.
Of St. Mark's four replies on purgatory composed at the Council of Florence, the First Homily contains the most concise account of the Orthodox doctrine as against the Latin errors, and it is chiefly from it that this translation has been compiled. The other replies contain mostly illustrative material for the points discussed here, as well as answers to more specific Latin arguments.
The "Latin Chapter" to which St. Mark replies are those written by Julian Cardinal Cesarini (Russian translation in Pogodin, pp. 50-57), giving the Latin teaching, defined at the earlier "Union" Council of Lyons (1270), on the state of souls after death. This teaching strikes the Orthodox reader (as indeed it struck St. Mark) as one of an entirely too "literalistic" and "legalistic" character. The Latins by this time had come to regard heaven and hell as somehow "finished" and "absolute," and those in them as already possessing the fullness of the state they will have after the Last Judgment; thus, there is no need to pray for those in heaven (whose lot is already perfect) or those in hell (for they can never be delivered or cleansed from sin). But since many of the faithful die in a "middle" state—not perfect enough for heaven, but not evil enough for hell—the logic of the Latin arguments required a third place of cleansing (''purgatory"), where even those whose sins had already been forgiven had to be punished or give "satisfaction" for their sins before being sufficiently cleansed to enter heaven. These legalistic arguments of a purely human "justice" (which actually deny God's supreme goodness and love of mankind) the Latins proceeded to support by literalistic interpretations of certain Patristic texts and various visions; almost all of these interpretations are quite contrived and arbitrary, because not even the ancient Latin Fathers spoke of such a place as "purgatory," but only of the "cleansing" from sins after death, which some of them referred to (probably allegorically) as by "fire."
In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also. There is no fire tormenting sinners now, however, either in hell (for the eternal fire will begin to torment them only after the Last Judgment), or much less in any third place like "purgatory"; all visions of fire which are seen by men are as it were images or prophecies of what will be in the future age. All forgiveness of sins after death comes solely from the goodness of God, which extends even to those in hell, with the cooperation of the prayers of men, and no "payment" or "satisfaction" is due for sins which have been forgiven.
It should be noted that St. Mark's writings concern primarily the specific point of the state of souls after death, and barely touch on the history of the events that occur to the soul immediately after death. On the latter point there is an abundant Orthodox literature, but this point was not under discussion at Florence.

* * *  

The comments below were taken from the discussion at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.0.html

Purgatory exists to deal with the expiation of the temporal punishment due to post-baptismal personal sin, that part of the punishment which the person has not been able to expiate while on earth.

The purpose of purgatory is the expiation of sin, or the discharge of the debt of temporal punishment (Trent, Session 6, Canon 30). The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks about "those who are expiating their sins in purgatory" (paragraph 1475). To "expiate" means to make reparation for an offence or injury. This expiation is achieved through suffering of the soul. Unless completed on earth, "expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." And again, those "who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance of their sins and omissions are cleaned after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican II, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, 1967).

* * * 

Temporal punishment 

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God. (Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm ) 

* * * 

The Pope Benedict XVI does recognize a substantial difference between Orthodox and his church's stand on the matter:

48. A further point must be mentioned here, because it is important for the practice of Christian hope. Early Jewish thought includes the idea that one can help the deceased in their intermediate state through prayer (see for example 2 Macc 12:38-45; first century BC). The equivalent practice was readily adopted by Christians and is common to the Eastern and Western Church. The East does not recognize the purifying and expiatory suffering of souls in the afterlife, but it does acknowledge various levels of beatitude and of suffering in the intermediate state. The souls of the departed can, however, receive “solace and refreshment” through the Eucharist, prayer and almsgiving. The belief that love can reach into the afterlife, that reciprocal giving and receiving is possible, in which our affection for one another continues beyond the limits of death—this has been a fundamental conviction of Christianity throughout the ages and it remains a source of comfort today.  (ENCYCLICAL LETTER Spe Salvi - Pope Benedict XVI) 

* * * 

[In the bellow quote] I highlighted the crux of the matter.  I think this dual definition of 'punishment' is entirely absent from Orthodox theology:

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."

* * * 

2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments. Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them. (Indulgentarium Doctrina - Pope Paul VI, 1967)

* * * 

Fr Hardon has been one of the pre-eminent apologists of the Catholic Faith over the last 40 years.  His works are everywhere, on EWTN, etc., etc.  Fr Hardon served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992. 

Writers in the Latin tradition are quite unanimous that the fire of purgatory is real and not metaphorical. They argue from the common teaching of the Latin Fathers, of some Greek Fathers, and of certain papal statements like that of Pope Innocent IV, who spoke of “a transitory fire” (DB 456). ("The Doctrine of Purgatory" by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eschatology/Eschatology_006.htm)

* * * 

On the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"). 

Perhaps there is another problem, and that is differentiating between when a Pope speaks as a matter of doctrine versus when he speaks merely out of personal opinion.  In terms of the Orthodox, since no one person has the status of authoritatively speaking for the Church (we have saints that come close, such as St. John Chrysostom, but I have read Orthodox take issue with this or that thing he said and not be accused of departing from the Church's teaching), then it is much easier for us to dismiss this person or that saint as being 'out on a limb.'  In the West, since the Pope holds the position of supreme authority when it comes to the determination of doctrinal statements, it is assumed that every time a Pope speaks, he is speaking authoritatively on the matter of which he speaks.

This impression was reinforced by a pronouncement regarding 'infallibility' of the Pope's pronouncements, though I have heard that it has been variously attenuated and not even used in recent memory (unless I am mistaken, which is entirely possible in this matter).

The Council of Trent proclaimed "difficult and subtle questions" as Purgatory ought not be discussed (as did the Treaty of Brest), but they certainly are taught as the CCC demonstrates.  To me, it appears the Magisterium of the RCC is not always very comfortable with this topic, given that it has caused them a great deal of controversy and that they are willing to unify with Orthodox who reject the teachings regarding temporal punishment, yet equally insist that such teachings are obligatory for all Roman Catholics.

 * * * 

[Indulgences] has to do with the Western idea of the "merits of the saints" and binding and loosing. Basically it's been taught in the Roman Catholic Church that there is a treasury of merits in heaven earned by the saints. The pope can therefore issue indulgences, drawing from this treasury of merit, and apply it in expiation of the time one is due to spend in purgatory( where one is being cleanesed of a "residual" stain of forgiven sins for which insufficient pennance was done, or unconfessed venial sins.) The pope issues indulgences, promising either the partial or full removal of time in purgatory. An indulgence may also be applied to the deceased. In order for one to gain an indulgenxe one must will to gain said indulgence, usually attatched to performing some sort of pious act, recieve Comunion, pray for the intentions of the pope and be free from all attatchment to even venial sin. If the last condition of freedom of attatchment to venial sin is not met, the indulgence becomes partial, and not plenary(full).

* * * 

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings.  So Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

I'd like to pull a post from a mutual friend who writes here.

Do yourself a favor and pick up any book in the 1950's teaching the Roman Catholic Faith...
This is The Faith
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Everyman's Theology
Baltimore Catechism
etc
and you will find the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950's and 'all' of them taught Purgatory, Limbo, etc in the same exact way with very little in common with today's Roman Catholic Theology.
Modern Roman Catholics are all about reductionism. Separating 'depictions' from Doctrine, Traditions from traditions, etc etc. That is because within this kind of reconstruction you would be forced to deal with the contradictions such a move in Theology would create.
I'd recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years.
Now you and others may argue that this 'piece' of Classic Theology wasn't 'infallibly' spoken or was only tradition with a small "t".   For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce.  It's rationalizing how we 'change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church' without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church... and that is weak in my opinion.
For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a 'place and state' and that Limbo was a 'place and state' but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions.  I ask, what happened to 'truth'?   I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn't because this or that wasn't spoken infallibly or was actually never 'really' part of Tradition but only tradition with a small "t".   I simply can't believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into... the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.