PURGATORY
I. Errors concerning Purgatory:
(1) Protestant denials;
(2) Position of the Eastern Orthodox.
II. The Catholic Dogma of Purgatory:
(1) In Scripture:
(2) In Catholic Tradition.
III. Some theological questions:
(1) The Pains of Purgatory; is there a two-fold punishment as in Hell; the nature, intensity and duration of the sufferings;
(2) The joys of Purgatory.
It was at a comparatively late date that the dogma of Purgatory was defined.
Until the thirteenth century the ordinary magisterium of the Church was held to be sufficient.
But the necessity of definitely settling certain matters of doctrine contested by the Eastern theologians induced Pope Gregory X to require the Byzantine Emperor,Michael Paleologus, to subscribe to a Profession of Faith wherein the dogma of Purgatory was clearly set down.
Later on, in 1438, when the Council of Florence drew up the decree of union between the Eastern and the Roman Churches, this Profession of Faith was re-issued in the most solemn form as a dogmatic and infallible definition of the Church’s teaching:
“If those who are truly penitent, depart from this life in the charity of God, before they have made satisfaction, by worthy fruits of repentance, for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are cleansed by purgatorial sufferings after death; and the suffrages of the living, to wit, the sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, alms-deeds and other works of piety, which the faithful have been accustomed to offer for each other according to the established usages of the Church, are profitable to those departed souls for the relief of their sufferings.”
In the sixteenth century, owing to the denial of this dogma by the Protestants, the Church was forced to speak again, and during the course of the Council of Trent, two pronouncements were made.
- The first was during the sixth session (13th January, 1547), when the following anathema was launched: “If anyone shall say that, after receiving the grace of justification, every repentant sinner s sin is so wholly forgiven and the debt of eternal punishment completely remitted, that there remains no debt of temporal punishment still to be paid, either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the gates of Heaven are open to him, let him be anathema” (Can. 30).
- Again in the twenty-fifth and last session the Council drew up a decree about Purgatory, in which, summarizing the teaching formulated at Florence, it commands bishops and priests to hold and teach this doctrine. They are enjoined to avoid difficult and subtle questions, which are without profit to piety; to abstain from treating of matters uncertain and false, and to refrain from anything that ministers to superstition and mere curiosity, or that betrays a greed for filthy lucre.
It is in this spirit that we shall here expound:
I. The prevalent errors concerning Purgatory;
II. The official teaching of the Church, and
III. Necessary explanations provided by accredited Theology.
The question of prayers for the dead, which is more fittingly dealt with in the volume on The Communion of Saints, we shall leave aside.
I. ERRORS RELATIVE TO PURGATORY
- Protestants deny the dogma of Purgatory;
- so also, as far as their words go, do the Greek Orthodox, whose teaching on the subject is somewhat complicated and not wholly free from errors.
(1) The Protestant denial of Purgatory
It was only little by little that Luther made known his real views as to the dogma of Purgatory.
At first while he professed to hold the doctrine, he made it his business to bring it into ridicule and contempt. He held that “Purgatory cannot be proved by any text of the canonical Scriptures” (proposition 37, condemned by Leo X), and that it was the Pope who made of Purgatory an article of faith. In 1528 he still allows prayers for the dead, but looks upon them as mere external practices with no definite object.
But in 1530 we find him condemning, in the most violent language, the whole principle of satisfaction for sin, thus, in fact, drawing the logical conclusion from his doctrine of justification. He writes: “Purgatory is idolatry, a devilish phantom; it is the most abject of things, vermin, filth coming straight from the Mass, the dragon’s tail.”
There was no beating about the bush with Calvin, who from the beginning called Purgatory “a fiction of Satan” and did his best to overthrow the traditional belief and practices.
The reasons for denying Purgatory given by Protestant theologians are:
- that there is nothing about it in Holy Writ,
- that it was unknown to the early Church,
- and that through the merits of Jesus Christ our sins are wholly forgiven and the punishment due for them remitted.
Some modern liberal Protestants hold that the souls of the dead may have to pass through a middle state wherein their purification is completed and they undergo a process of spiritual development until the day of judgment, but this is by no means the same thing as Purgatory with its purification of the soul through suffering and expiation. Their theory is that the soul itself uses its natural freedom for self-purification from evil and self-development in good.
(2) Teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches
This is much more complicated and difficult to determine, though Mgr. Petit has greatly facilitated the task of the historian of dogma by the publication, in thePatrologia Orientalis, of many documents bearing upon the Council of Florence and the question of Purgatory.
1. According to the Greeks there is no Purgatory.
But we must note well what they mean by the word Purgatory. To their minds it presents the two ideas of an intermediate place between Heaven and Hell, and of a purifying fire acting upon the soul, and they deny the existence of both the place and the fire.
They hold that there is no proof to be found in the Scriptures or in the Fathers, and that the whole weight of theological argument, of reason enlightened by faith, is against the doctrine.
Confronted with the well-known words from 2 Maccabees, 12:46, they admit that they prove the utility and efficacy of prayers for the dead, but not that they imply a belief in Purgatory.
The forgiveness of sins in the next life (Matt. 12:32) is not necessarily effected by cleansing fires, while the parable of Lazarus and the rich man clearly shows that between Abraham’s bosom and Hell there is no middle place, but only a vast, impassable abyss.
The only text in favour of Purgatory in which fire is mentioned, is 1 Corinthians 3:11-15: the sinner, whose less grievous sins are symbolized by hay, wood and stubble, will be saved, but as by fire. But in reality, as St. John Chrysostom for example, understands the passage, the hay, wood and stubble represent vices which are incapable of withstanding God’s searching judgment; yet the sinner will be saved, that is, he will be preserved, he will continue to live, but in fire, in the eternal fire of Hell.
Nor can any explicit teaching be found in the Fathers. As a rule they do no more than affirm that prayer for the dead is useful and profitable, but that is not to affirm Purgatory as understood in the Roman Church. Those of the Greek Fathers who speak of a cleansing fire are infected with Origen’s deplorable heresy, while among the Latins it is either a mere personal opinion, as in the case of St. Gregory, without any authoritative teaching behind it, or else it is just a way of expressing that some sins may possibly be forgiven in the next world.
Further, they argue, it is contradictory to say, on the one hand, that contrition and repentance obtain forgiveness of sin from God, and, on the other, that after the sin is forgiven there is still a debt of punishment to be paid. Baptism forgives sin, and at the same time it wholly remits the debt of punishment; why should Penance be less efficacious?
Of the arguments directly attacking the “Latin” doctrine, we need mention only one, which is aimed against the position taken up by St. Thomas. Any hypothesis of a temporal punishment in the next world is refuted by the immutability of the human will after death. For, as St. Thomas says, this immovability of the lost in their clinging to evil is the reason why their punishment in Hell is eternal. Hence temporal punishment in the next world would necessarily imply that the will is not yet definitely determined either towards evil or good; and as this cannot be granted, the doctrine of Purgatory must be rejected.
2. Recognizing that destructive criticism is not enough the Greeks offer their “reconstruction” of the theology of the future life.
Quite commonly they hold that the full reward or punishment is not meted out to the dead immediately after death, but that it will be delayed until the last judgment.
The souls of the dead have from the first a clear knowledge of their condition relative to the claims of God’s justice. But the just do not begin at once to enjoy the happiness laid up for them as the reward of their good deeds, nor are the wicked cast down immediately into the eternal torments of Hell.
From the hour of death until the day of judgment the souls of the dead are “detained” in conditions suitable to their moral goodness or wickedness: the just are in Heaven or else in the “terrestrial paradise,” their state is one of happiness and they even enjoy the vision of God’s glory; sinners are already shut up in Hell and stiffer terrible anguish in a condition of inconsolable misery, awaiting the Judge’s final sentence and the tortures it will bring upon them.
But, at the same time, the just are not yet in possession of those things “that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man” to conceive (1 Cor. 2:9), nor are the wicked yet plunged into eternal torments and unquenchable fire. All are in a state of expectancy awaiting the definite sentence to be delivered at the last judgment.
Hence there is no room for an intermediate state, for any purification of the soul other than that of this life, for any temporal punishment by fire of those who in life have achieved but a moderate degree of virtue. Anything of this sort seems impossible, seeing that the due punishment of the most wicked and perverse of men, and even of the devils, is, as it were, suspended until the end of the world.
3. The explanations of these general propositions offered by the Greeks are of a confused nature, testifying to the difficulties arising from their denial of the dogma of Purgatory.
All sinners, for example, are not God’s enemies in the same way and to the same degree, and their imprisonment in Hell cannot, therefore, have the same consequences and meaning for all.
So we find Mark of Ephesus explicitly admitting, at the Council of Florence, that some souls leave this life in the faith and love of God, yet still soiled and burdened with slight faults or graver sins for which they have not yet done penance. And their place, at least that of the more guilty among them, is in Hell until such time as the prayers and sacrifices offered for them shall have obtained the forgiveness of their sins.
Cardinal Bessarion was even more definite. Between the souls of the elect and those of the damned there is a class of what he called medium souls, who deserve neither Heaven nor Hell for eternity, and who must suffer until their sins are forgiven. In the next world they will have to do penance for slight sins for which they did none in this, and for more serious sins for which their penance in this life was inadequate.
The relation between the sufferings to be borne after death, and the sins on account of which they are to be undergone is one of the most obscure points with Orthodox theologians. Yet none of them deny these sufferings.
At the council of Ferrara they were described at length by the Schismatic theologians present, who, while maintaining that they are in proportion to the sins, denied that they consist in any positive torment distinct from the soul, maintaining that they are nothing more than sorrow, remorse, shame, unhappiness arising from the darkness of the prison, fear and uncertainty as to the future, the day of deliverance being unknown, anxiety caused by the delay in achieving the beatific vision of God.
As for the word “fire,” if used at all, it must be taken in a wholly metaphorical sense, and the Fathers speak rather of tears and groans than of fire from which the dead must be delivered.
This deliverance is both God’s work and ours, the fruit of our prayers and sacrifices. Belief in the efficacy of prayers and of the sacrifice of the Mass, offered to God for the relief of the dead, is one of the central points of Orthodox teaching, and herein there is perfect agreement between Greeks and Latins; but in spite of this they persist in denying that Purgatory is a middle place between Heaven and Hell, and that fire is the instrument of the sufferings of those detained there.
To sum up: at death all men are either good or bad, sinless or sinful, and therefore destined for Heaven or Hell. But among the sinners a distinction is to be made between two classes, based, not upon the place to which they are sent, but upon their moral condition. Those who die in sin but without despairing of God’s mercy, form the class of “medium” souls, whom God, moved by the prayers and good works of the faithful, will one day deliver from Hell and place, among the elect, in Heaven.
Thus do the Orthodox reconcile their denial of Purgatory with their belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead.
II. THE CATHOLIC DOGMA OF PURGATORY
On the actual question of Purgatory it is not difficult to show that between Catholic belief and Orthodox thought there is fundamental agreement.
The Easterns will not admit that there is an intermediate place between Heaven and Hell, and deny the existence of a real fire as the means used in the purification of souls. But their denials go no farther.
They agree with the Latins in holding that there is a middle state for some who die in sin, who are not holy enough to go at once to Heaven, but who are so far removed from a state of despair and enmity with God that, after a certain period of probation and delay, they are deserving of full forgiveness.
There is still closer agreement on the efficacy of prayers for souls belonging to this middle class.
But to allow these two points is, in reality, to admit the whole dogma of Purgatory. This is how Pope Eugenius IV, for example, sums up Catholic teaching:
“These souls, of the intermediate class, are in a place of torments; but whether they are tormented by fire, darkness or tempest, or by some other thing, is a matter we do not choose to discuss” (Labbé, Concilia IX 491).
In its dogmatic decree the Council of Florence follows the Pope’s lead, and, as we have seen, refrains from defining anything whatsoever as to the precise placeof Purgatory or the nature of its purifying sufferings. Two things only are established: the existence of a state of purification for souls after this life, and the efficacy of our prayers and good works in hastening the process of purification. Upon these two points the Easterns agree with us, and hence it is that we say that their denial of Purgatory is a matter of words only.
It remains for us to prove the existence of a state of purification for souls after this life.
As against Luther the Church says that this is possible on the authority of Scripture; in addition to which we shall invoke also the authority of Catholic Tradition.
(1) Scriptural proof of the existence of Purgatory
Many texts are often quoted as proving, at least indirectly, the existence of Purgatory, for example:
- those which mention fasting and mourning for the dead, such as 1 Kings 31:13; 2 Kings 1:12; Tobias 4:17;
- or again the well-known words of St. Paul about baptism for the dead: 1 Cor. 15:29.
Leaving these aside, we shall make use of only three passages of greater importance.
1. The first is the decisive passage from 2 Maccabees 12:39-46.
After his victory over Gorgias, Judas found under the coats of his soldiers who had fallen idolatrous objects stolen from the temple of Jamnia. Those who had stolen and kept them had committed a grievous sin against God’s law, yet the Jews:
“betaking themselves to prayers, besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin. . . and making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.”
And the inspired writer adds his approval of what Judas had done:
“It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”
This passage shows that the dead can be delivered from the burden of sin in the next world, and that there is, consequently, a middle state between Heaven and Hell, in which there are souls not yet wholly purified, with a debt still to pay, and that we can help them, by our prayers, to satisfy God’s justice.
2. The second argument is drawn from the words reported by St. Matthew 12:32, where Christ speaks of the sin which will be forgiven “neither in this world nor in the next.”
Whence it follows, at least indirectly, that some sins can be forgiven in the next world, and this implies that there is a penalty to be paid and expiation to be made for these sins in the next life; which is the sum and substance of the dogma of Purgatory.
3. The third text is taken from 1 Corinthians 3:11 and was used by the Latin theologians at the Council of Florence to prove the existence of the “fire” of Purgatory.
Speaking of the last judgment and of the “fire” which will make known the day of the Lord and will prove every man’s works and teachings, St. Paul shows the building up of the Christian church at Corinth, begun by his own teaching and carried on by those who came after him.
Using symbolical language, he says that the materials employed by these later builders are of different values; on the one hand, they have used gold, silver and precious stones, on the other, wood, straw and stubble; in other words their teaching has been either of the highest worth or of but little value.
At the day of judgment each man’s work will be proved by fire: the gold, silver and precious stones will pass the proof unscathed, but the wood, straw and stubble will be consumed, and the careless workmen who used these materials will see their work perish, while they themselves “shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”
The value of the argument depends, in the first place, upon the exact meaning of the word “fire.”
Many Protestants understand it metaphorically as the fire of this world’s tribulation, but since the Apostle connects it with God’s judgment this interpretation cannot be upheld.
Neither can it be a question of the fire of Hell, even though the great authority of St. John Chrysostom favours this view. Hell-fire is not a testing fire, while it is a fanciful abuse of terms to understand that the sinner is saved by being simply kept alive by the fire of Hell and not destroyed.
Nor is the reference, directly at least, to the real fire of Purgatory as is held by many Catholics, since the fire of Purgatory does not try every man’s works, and good deeds, symbolized by gold, silver and precious stones are not submitted to its test.
Hence only two possible interpretations of the word “fire” are left; it must be understood either:
- of the general conflagration at the end of the world,
- or, metaphorically, of the fire of judgment.
If we accept the former, and less probable interpretation, we have an indirect argument in favour of the existence of Purgatory, for the fire of the final conflagration would have a twofold purpose, to wit, the death of all those still living, and the purification of those whose imperfect lives still called for some measure of expiation. But what is true at the end of the world must be true at all times and for all men; hence there is a cleansing fire for the expiation of faults committed, the penalty for which has not been paid in full.
But if we accept the latter interpretation, in reality the only really probable one, we must admit that at the last day there will be a final trial through which all will have to pass, and which will injure those only who, though saved, present to their sovereign Judge works not free from blemish and imperfection. And this, again, is proof, even though but indirectly, of the existence of Purgatory.
(2) Purgatory according to Catholic Tradition
This interpretation of St. Paul’s words leads us by a natural sequence to the consideration of the teaching enshrined in Catholic tradition.
For after close study of the question we are fully convinced that the primitive form of Catholic belief in Purgatory is evidenced in the belief in the fire of judgment.
This belief is expressed principally by St. Maximus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Justin and Origen among the Greeks, and, among the Latins, by St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Paulinus of Nola, and probably St. Jerome.
Now the writers who speak of the “fire of the judgment” attribute to it all the marks of a cleansing fire, and this belief in its existence and its action would be indirecttestimony in favour of the dogma of Purgatory, even though the fire were allowed to be but the instrument for the carrying out of the last judgment.
But there is more than this in the Fathers’ teaching. Those among them who support the existence of the judgment fire nearly all fall into the then common error relative to the actual bestowal of reward and retribution.
In the first five centuries it was commonly believed, as the Easterns still believe, that the just did not go into Heaven or the wicked into Hell until after the last judgment. Such being the case, the doctrine of a cleansing fire previous to the admission of souls into paradise must, of necessity, have been in line with this common error of perspective, and in the mind of the Greeks, the action of the fire could not have been thought of as effective until the actual moment of the judgment. Hence the primitive doctrine of the fire of judgment, based upon St. Paul’s declaration, would be the original form in which belief in Purgatory showed itself. On this point readers may consult the article Feu du Jugement in the Dictionnaire de Thiologie Catholique.
The purifying sufferings of the next world are explicitly mentioned by Tertullian, St. Cyprian and St. Augustine. Tertullian speaks of the offerings made for the dead on their anniversary days, an ancient custom, rooted in old tradition and kept alive by faith. All the Fathers, moreover, speak of prayers and oblations for the dead, and of the offering for them of the sacrifice of the Mass, which were clearly traditional practices as old as the Church herself. Though there be a diversity of opinion as to the nature of the sufferings borne by the souls in Purgatory, the unanimous witness of the Fathers to these practices is proof of the Church’s belief in somefuture expiation beyond the grave that the prayers of the living could do something to shorten.
There is no need to quote a lot of testimonies on this matter; let us, however, listen to the great St. John Chrysostom exhorting his flock to pray for sinners who have passed from life.
“As far as lies within our power,” he says, “we must help them; not by tears, but by prayers and supplications, by alms and intercessions. It is not without good reason that these practices have been established, nor is it in vain that, in the sacred mysteries, we make a memorial of them that are no more” (Hom. 42 on I Cor. no. 4).
We quote St. John Chrysostom by preference because he has been accused, on the strength of passages similar to the one we have just read, of teaching the efficacy of prayers for the damned. As if all sinners, even those dying without showing any outward signs of repentance, must necessarily be looked upon as damned! We must beware of such forced interpretations, no matter how influential the quarter whence they come.
Catholic tradition as to Purgatory is well summed up in the Memento of the dead found in many liturgies:
“Remember, Lord, thy servants and thy handmaids. To them and to all who sleep in Christ we beseech thee in Jesus Christ our Lord to grant, in thy mercy, a place of refreshment, light and peace.”
III. SOME POINTS OF THEOLOGICAL TEACHING
The Catholic theologian, obedient to the decree of the Council of Trent, must avoid all speculations arising from the spirit of mere curiosity and confine himself to those theological truths that are calculated to further the piety and devotion of the faithful.
We shall, therefore, treat only a few of the more interesting points of the theology of Purgatory relating to the sufferings and joys of the holy souls awaiting the call to the beatific vision.
(1) The sufferings of Purgatory
As to the nature of these sufferings nothing is certain; we have but vague and general indications as to their intensity, while with regard to their duration the theologian is reduced to conjectures.
This uncertainty notwithstanding, these three aspects of the sufferings of Purgatory offer certain points that may be studied with interest and profit.
(a) Must the sufferings of Purgatory be thought of as twofold after the fashion of the pain of loss and the pain of sense in Hell?
Many theologians do set up such an analogy, and in popular preaching Purgatory is often represented as a sort of Hell from which, however, the hope and certainty of salvation are not excluded.
The analogy, however, is but a very pale one. The very fact that the souls in Purgatory have the hope and certainty of salvation takes away from their temporary deprivation of the vision of God the essential character of a true damnation.
If it be certain also that the holy souls suffer any positive torment, it is equally certain that we have no precise knowledge of its nature.
The doctrine of a real fire of Purgatory is regarded by the Church simply as an opinion which, though not to be derided, may yet be refused acceptance without injury to the faith.
It will be more profitable to note how the punishment of Purgatory differs, in its very nature, from that of Hell. The latter is purely and solely penal, the former is essentially an expiation and a purification. It would be wrong to look upon the temporal suffering of Purgatory as merely suffering beneath which the soul remainspassive awaiting the hour of its entrance into Heaven. No doubt the soul has to suffer, but it is a saving suffering of expiation which excites in the soul, still in need of purification, sentiments of humility, ardent desires and acts of love which make it less and less unworthy of God.
Bossuet in his Sermon sur la necessité des souffrances (3rd point), with that clarity of expression characteristic of his theology, thus expounds the contrastbetween Purgatory and Hell:
“The distinguishing mark of Hell is not simply suffering, but suffering unaccompanied by repentance. The sacred Scriptures reveal to us two sorts of fire; there is a cleansing fire and a consuming and devouring fire; Uniuscujusque opus probabit ignis (1 Cor. 3:13) … Cum igne devorante (Is. 33:14). This latter is called in the Gospel ‘a fire that is not extinguished,’ ignis non exstinguitur (Mk. 9:47), to distinguish it from the fire that is kindled to purify us and is always quenched as soon as this office is performed. Suffering accompanied by repentance is a cleansing fire, but suffering without repentance is a devouring and consuming fire, and such precisely is the fire of Hell.”
Mgr. d’Hulst, again, in his Lettres de Direction (107th), expounding the teaching of St. Catherine of Genoa, lays it down that the purifying sufferings of Purgatory are made up of humiliations, charity and desire. The flames of Purgatory are, above all:
“the fire of a jealous love. Love revenges itself as love knows how; love’s vengeance destroys, not the unfaithful object of love, but rather the unfaithfulness itself and thus while punishing the loved one cleanses him and renders him worthy of love.”
(b) St. Augustine writes that “the pain of fire will be more grievous to him who shall be saved by fire than anything that man can suffer in this life” (In Psalm 37, P.L. XXXVI, 397.)
St. Thomas in the Supplement q. 2, a. 1, re-echoes this teaching:
“The least pain of Purgatory is greater than the greatest sufferings of this life. For the more ardently one desires a thing, the greater is the suffering caused by the lack of it. And since the regretful desire with which the holy souls hunger after the supreme Good is most ardent . . . it follows that the suffering arising from this delay (in attaining it) is most intense. Similarly . . . since the whole sensitiveness of the body is rooted in the soul, it follows that a more poignant affliction results from any suffering that directly affects the soul.”
St. Bonaventure essays to temper what appears the too vigorous severity of this teaching. After agreeing that “according to the indisputable assertion of the Master of the Sentences (Peter Lombard) and the holy Doctors, even though the reason may not be evident, the sufferings of Purgatory are more severe than any temporal pain endured by the soul during its union with the body,” the seraphic Doctor nevertheless grants that the sufferings cannot rightly he compared unless we take account of the sins for which they are inflicted. We must compare things that fall under the same genus, that is, penalties inflicted for the same sins. For the same sin, then, the slightest suffering in Purgatory will be greater than the most severe punishment inflicted for it on earth.
To many this opinion seems more probable, as being more in accordance with equity, than the opinion held by St. Thomas and St. Augustine. If we ask why the sufferings of Purgatory should be more severe than the corresponding punishments of this world, the reason is to be found in the fact that they are less meritorious. The next life is the time of judgment, of reward and of retribution, this life is the time of mercy and forgiveness; so, suffering freely and willingly borne in this life has amuch higher expiatory value than that endured of necessity in Purgatory. This thought should prove profitable and fruitful in leading the faithful to do penance now so as not to have too heavy an account against them hereafter.
(c) With the end of the world there will be an end also of Purgatory.
But if we ask how long each soul’s stay in Purgatory will last, and whether all the elect or the greater number of them will have to pass through Purgatory, we can find no sure answer.
Nevertheless we think it not extravagant to admit, not merely the possibility but the actual fact, that a saintly soul may go at once to Heaven without any delay in Purgatory. Otherwise the explicit definitions of the second general council of Lyons, in the profession of faith imposed upon the Emperor Michael, by Pope Benedict XII in the constitution Benedictus Deus, and by the Council of Florence in the decree of union, would seem to be purposeless. In these documents mention is made of “those who die without having incurred, since their baptism, the stain of any sin,” and of those who, having stained their souls, “have been cleansed from the stain while their souls were still united with their bodies.” And it is declared that these faithful souls enter immediately, at once, mox, into Heaven and into the enjoyment of happiness.
In these passages there is surely something more than the bare assertion of a possibility; they tell us of a thing that really happens. It cannot, however, happen often. We know that our sins can be and often are forgiven, both sacramentally and extra-sacramentally, without the whole debt of punishment being remitted.
This appears clearly from the dogmatic decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, ch. XIII):
“The holy synod declares to be false and contrary to the teaching of the word of God, the doctrine held by those who maintain that a sin is never forgiven without, at the same time, the punishment incurred by it being also remitted.”
Undoubtedly, the full forgiveness of a sin both as to guilt and punishment is quite possible, but, in this world, being given the imperfection and weakness of human nature, we can never know whether our acts of the love of God have been so perfect as to win for us the remission of the whole debt of punishment. It is to be feared that, in spite of our efforts, some attachment to sin, or some negligence in the reparation we make to God, may follow us beyond the grave and make us still subject to divine justice.
The greatest saints, such as St. Theresa, feared they might go to Purgatory, and the saintly Curé of Ars, preaching on the subject, cried out; “Ah, my friends, how little is needed to send us into the fire of Purgatory!”
Conscious of their own unworthiness before God’s holiness and convinced of the necessity of expiating their slightest faults, the saints meditated on Purgatory. Let us, who are without their sanctity, imitate them.
It is quite useless to ask how long a time the souls of the dead must pass in Purgatory.
In the first place how are we to measure a duration which lies outside of time? Some opinions put forward on this question are certainly rash. The Church allows us to continue indefinitely to offer Mass for the dead, with the one exception of canonized saints.
Let us imitate her wisdom and avoid the presumption and folly of counting upon a shortened Purgatory for ourselves if we have not so lived as to deserve it.
One thing we know, namely, that the detention of souls in Purgatory is shortened by the prayers offered for them by the living. And we may well suppose that their sufferings will progressively diminish in intensity, according as the supplications of the living ascend before God’s throne.
St. Catherine of Genoa speaks of the contentment of the souls in Purgatory, “which grows day by day as God penetrates them, and this He does according to the measure in which obstacles in the way are removed.”
(2) The Joys of Purgatory
We have just spoken of the contentment of the souls in Purgatory, and for good reason, since, together with their unspeakable sufferings, they experience an indescribable joy.
1. They rejoice in the certainty of salvation, and as the prayer of the Mass expresses it, sleep the sleep of peace. Their time of waiting is not shadowed by any uncertainty or any fear.
Pope Leo X condemned Luther’s assertion that “the souls in Purgatory are not all sure of their salvation.”
2. Another of their joys arises from their impeccability, for, with that unchangeableness that characterizes the soul’s action in the next life, they now cleave to their true last end, God. He is the only object of their desires and their aspirations. Their attachment to Him is so strong that they detest whatever could separate them from Him, and cling to everything that can increase their knowledge and love of Him. And, therefore, they welcome and love their sufferings because they know that through them they are purified and brought nearer to God.
For this reason Leo X also condemned Luther’s teaching that, “the souls in Purgatory sin always because they seek repose and hate their sufferings.”
3. The joys of Purgatory have their source in the love of God that burns in the holy souls. As soon as they enter Purgatory they are set on fire by so great a love that, in St. Thomas’s opinion, every venial sin is instantly washed away.
St. Catherine of Genoa says:
“I do not believe that except for joy of the blessed in Heaven, it is possible to find joy equal to that of the souls in Purgatory. The love of God gives to the soul a contentment beyond expression. Yet it does not take away an iota from its suffering, for it is the delay undergone by love before attaining the object loved that causes the suffering, and the suffering is in proportion to the love of God of which God makes the soul capable. Hence in Purgatory the height of joy is mated with the depths of sadness without either being thereby weakened.”
In conclusion we may point out the weak spots in the argument against Purgatory, founded on the immutability of the will in the next life, used by Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion.
It has already been shown that aeviternity implies not absolute immutability, but substantial immutability accompanied by accidental change.
The soul in Purgatory is already substantially fixed in the love of God, but has not yet acquired the eternal unchangeableness that arises from the possession of the beatific vision.
So far it is only upon the threshold of this.
But a moment will come in its existence when its intellect and will, instead of cleaving unchangeably to God by faith, will be immutably united with Him by direct vision, and the aeviternity in which it has hitherto lived will give place to participated eternity.
