The idea of purification after death.
The most important document of the ecclesiastical teaching on intermediate eschatology is, without a doubt, the constitution Benedictus Deus, of Benedict XII. It defines that, for the souls of the just who have nothing to purge, eternal life begins immediately after death: Denz. 530; In the same way it is defined that for the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, damnation begins immediately after death: Denz. 531. In the first member a clear limitation is evident: it concerns the souls of those “in whom there was nothing to be purified from when they died”; If such a hypothesis were not realized, the possession of the beatific vision would take place for those souls “when, after death, they have been purified.” An purification after death (“after death”) is therefore mentioned: a transitory state, distinct from the two definitive states of salvation and damnation, which completes the doctrine on intermediate eschatology.
The idea of otherworldly purification had been rejected by all medieval “Cathar” movements. Specifically, the Albigensians did not accept a state of purification after death. According to them, souls that were not fully purified at death took, after death, other bodies until they obtained full purification and thus returned to heaven. The purification would always be terrestrial, carried out in successive earthly existences.
Naturally, this medieval opposition would only have historical interest. More important is to point out the difficulty that, faced with the idea of purgatory, all orthodox Protestantism experiences.
The idea of purgatory and Protestant theology
It is curious that Luther slowly came to the denial of purgatory: in the Leipzig dispute of 1519 he merely denied that the existence of purgatory could be demonstrated by any of the canonical Scriptures.[1]; In the year 1530 he attacks the very existence of purgatory in his writing “Widerruf vom Fegfeuer”; From then on, this will be its definitive position.
The other reformers agree in the denial of purgatory, and this denial remains to this day in orthodox Protestantism. It should be noted that this coincidence in excluding the existence of purgatory enters into the logic of the Protestant system. Indeed, the idea of purgatory is in opposition to Protestant ideas on the central issue of justification.
The reformers themselves already perceived this opposition as something that is part of the system. Thus Zwingli insisted that, admitting justification by faith alone, one should not admit a state upon which the intervention of the keys of the Church would be possible (the issue of indulgences).[2].
But the deepest point of opposition appears if we compare the Protestant doctrine on justification with the doctrine of the Council of Trent.[3]. Classical Protestantism does not admit the idea of a justice intrinsic to man, which, as internal to man, would be truly his; Man is intrinsically sinful. No other justice is admitted but the justice of Christ, which can be imputed extrinsically to man; the justice of Christ is infinitely perfect. Therefore, if God does not impute to man the justice of Christ, he cannot see him except as he is intrinsically in himself, as a truly sinner. But if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him, that man, extrinsically justified, will remain intrinsically sinful (according to the classic Protestant formula, in such a case, “man is both just and a sinner”), but God in him no longer attends to the internal reality that is man, but only to the righteousness of Christ that has been imputed to him.
In Protestant orthodoxy, the judgment of God, when exercised on man, has only two possibilities[4]: either he considers it in his internal reality as a sinner, and then the man is condemned, or he looks at the justice of Christ that has been imputed to him; In this second case, God’s judgment does not fall on something imperfect, but on the infinite perfection of Christ’s justice; man is saved without there being anything (looking at the infinite justice of Christ) that can delay his salvation.
Purgatory and the Catholic idea of justification
On the contrary, according to the definitions of the Council of Trent, the justice of man, in its formal aspect, is really different from the infinite justice that Christ has as a divine person: “the only formal cause [of justification] is the justice of God, not that with which He is just, but that with which He makes us just, namely, that with which, graced by Him, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only considered, but we call ourselves truly righteous and are so, receiving in us justice, each one his own, according to the measure, which the Holy Spirit distributes to each one as you want, [1 Cor 12:11], and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation” (Denz. 799). Our justice comes from Christ and his merits, but it is really different from the justice that Christ has and by which He is infinitely just: “If anyone says that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, for which he merited for us, or that they are formally just for the same, let him be anathema” (Denz. 820).
The just man has, therefore, an internal justice and, in this sense, his own, and, therefore, limited and imperfect. This imperfection must be clearly stated, since internal justice is “the only formal cause” of justification (Denz. 799), and is not accompanied by a supplementary imputation of the justice of Christ (in the sense of the theory of double justice, as defended by the pre-Tridentine Catholic controversialists of the Cologne school).
The imperfection of justice in the man who has sanctifying grace should not be conceived as if the justified lacked something to merit eternal life.[5]. However, although the imperfection is not so great that it prevents the achievement of eternal life, it can delay that achievement insofar as it requires a prior purification process after death.
The imperfection of man’s justice derives, according to the Council of Trent, from a double chapter:
a) The state of justification can coexist in man and, in the long run, does coexist in fact (outside of a case of privilege) with venial sins, at least semi-deliberate[6].
b) The state of justification can coexist with the permanence of a period of temporal punishment (of sins already forgiven in terms of guilt), from which man, if he is not purified during earthly life, must be purified after death in purgatory before entering heaven.[7]
There is, therefore, a double chapter of imperfections of justice itself. For this reason, it is notable that the two great ecumenical councils that have dealt with purgatory (Florence and Trent) have related it only to the second of these chapters, that is, to the temporal punishment of sins already forgiven in terms of guilt and, if they were mortal, also forgiven in terms of the eternal penalty. In this way we wanted to avoid, in strictly dogmatic definitions, introducing a very difficult theological problem and which, for this reason, has remained outside the dogma. In fact, with death the state of pilgrimage ends, that is, the possibility of meriting or unmeriting; It is not easy to explain how venial guilts could be purified after death.[8].
Before entering into further clarifications, we have only to add that in these councils purgatory is conceived as a state, rather than as a place. We will see it later.
Purgatory at the Councils of Florence and Trent
1. The Council of Florence defined: «Furthermore, if, having truly done penance, they die in the charity of God before having satisfied themselves with fruits worthy of penance for the sins of commission and omission, their souls, after death, are purified with purgatory penalties; and to be freed from these punishments, they benefit from the suffrages of the living faithful, namely, the sacrifices of the mass, prayers and alms, and other services of piety that are usually done, according to the institutions of the Church, by some faithful in favor of other faithful”: Denz. 693.
2. The Council of Trent defined the imperfection of man’s justice, an imperfection that comes from the crime of temporal punishment, which must be repaired in this life or in the future. The council also decreed: “The Catholic Church having taught in the sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical Synod, indoctrinated by the Holy Spirit by the Holy Scriptures and by the ancient tradition of the Fathers, that there is purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but, above all, by the sacrifice of the altar, worthy of being accepted: the holy Synod commands the bishops that Diligently ensure that the sound doctrine on purgatory, transmitted by the Holy Fathers and the sacred councils, is believed by the Christian faithful, maintained, taught and preached everywhere”: Denz. 983. This second decree of Trent is disciplinary (“commands”), but it assumes that the doctrine of purgatory is of faith (the allusion to the preceding councils – especially that of Florence – and to its own definition in session 6.a; it also “commands the bishops to ensure” that the doctrine of purgatory “is believed» by the faithful).
In the terms, therefore, that we have just expressed, the doctrine of purgatory is a truth of divine and Catholic faith, defined in the Council of Florence and, again, in the 6th session of the Council of Trent (not in the disciplinary decree).
Purgatory and the contemporary ecclesiastical teaching
1. The Second Vatican Council, in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium c.7n.49, when describing the ecclesial reality in all its breadth, places purgatory as one of the three ecclesial states: «Some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth; Others, already deceased, are purified, while others are glorified. No. 50 recalls the Church’s practice, which dates back to the most primitive times, of praying for the faithful departed, and with the words of 2 Mac 12:46 (according to the Vulgate) it praises this use, “for holy and healthy is the thought of praying for the dead, so that they may be freed from their sins.” In n.51, the council proposes again, thus bringing to mind, the decrees of the councils of Florence and Trent on purgatory and prayer for the dead.
2. In a context similar to that of n.49 of c.7 of the Const. dogmatic Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, that is, in a description of the total reality of the Church in the hereafter[9], the theme of purgatory is inserted into the profession of faith of Paul VI: “We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ – whether those who have yet to be purified by the fire of purgatory, whether those who immediately after being separated from the body are received, like the Good Thief, by Jesus in Paradise – constitute the People of God after death, which will be totally destroyed on the day of resurrection, in which these souls will be united with their bodies” (no. 28)[10].
The biblical foundations of the doctrine of purgatory
Discussions have been frequent about the value of the passages of Holy Scripture that are usually adduced in favor of the existence of purgatory. Perhaps the discussion is based, above all, on the fact that many times, rather than showing the biblical foundations of the doctrine of purgatory, an attempt is made to assess whether the texts contain each and every one of the elements that belong, without a doubt, to the dogmatic idea of purgatory, but which, in their explicit form, are the result of a slow dogmatic progress in this matter. It is not unusual for the most negative position as to the value of the texts to be taken by men who have come to them seeking a developed idea of purgatory. We consider the texts that we are going to adduced to be valid.[11] provided that nothing more is sought in them than the fundamental ideas of our current developed doctrine on purgatory. Later these texts will appear in a clearer light, if we try to discover the Jewish background that is their real implicit context.[12].
a) 2 Mac 12.43ss[13]. The Vulgate translation must be corrected, according to the original text, as follows:
«And having collected two thousand drachmas for a collection, he (Judas Maccabeus) sent them to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice for sin, doing very well and thinking nobly of the resurrection, because he hoped that the fallen would rise again, considering that a magnificent reward is reserved for those who had died piously; That is why he prayed for the dead, so that they would be delivered from their sin.
For the exegesis of the pericope it is worth noting the following elements:
1) The inspired author praises not only the action but the persuasion of Judas (“doing very well and thinking nobly of the resurrection”), which he could not do if Judas’ way of thinking were false.
2) The essential elements of this way of thinking are: A) that those deceased have not died in a state of condemnation or enmity with God (“considering that those who had died piously a magnificent reward is in store”); B) however, they still lack something, from which they must be delivered (“so that they might be delivered from their sin”); C) all this is done in order to the resurrection so that in it they receive the same fate as other pious Jews[14].
b) 1 Cor 3:12-15. Much has been discussed about the evidentiary value in order to the idea of purgatory of passage. Here is the passage, from verse 11:
«For no one can lay another foundation except the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if one builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will be revealed; for the day will reveal it, because it will be revealed in fire; and how each one’s work is, the fire itself will evaluate it. If one’s work, which he built upon, stands, he will receive a reward; If one’s work is burned, he will suffer detriment; “He will be saved, although just as through fire.”
It will be necessary to warn again that it is not a question of searching in this text for the developed idea of purgatory, but for its essential core. The text deals with the specific case of apostolic workers, but regarding them it exposes a doctrine of great interest:
1) These are men who have built on the foundation, which is Christ, things of greater or lesser value (v. 12), not men who have rejected that foundation as a starting point for their construction and work.
2) On the day of judgment the value of what each of them has built will be revealed (v. 13); the “fire” spoken of twice in this v. 13 is not the fire of purgatory, but an image of divine judgment (note that it is exercised not only on flimsy materials, which do not resist it and catch fire, but also on solid materials that resist it).
3) “If one’s work, which he built upon, stands, [he who built such a work] will receive a reward”; It is, therefore, the hypothesis of immediate prize, because the work was solid and has withstood divine judgment.
4) “If one’s work is burned, he will suffer detriment”; The subject of “suffer detriment” is not the work that is burned, but the one who built it; The expression “shall suffer detriment” (v.15) is opposed to the “shall receive reward” of the preceding verse, and adds something new to the phrase immediately preceding it, “if one’s work be burned up”; In other words, the “suffer detriment” is not reduced to the apostolic worker seeing his work destroyed, but implies a penalty (as opposed to reward).
5) All this is clearer if we pay attention to the final metaphor: “he will be saved, although just as through fire” (v.15); The detriment that will be suffered is not such that it implies not being saved; will be saved, but with difficulty and anguish (again the fire is not the fire of purgatory here, but an image of a distressing situation): “they will be saved, but not without pain and anguish, as people surprised by a sudden fire are saved through the flames”[15].
Purgatory in patristic doctrine
1. In the 1st and 2nd centuries nothing is explicitly said about purgatory, at least considering it speculatively.[16].
2. It is of utmost importance that, among the oldest testimonies about purgatory that begin to appear in the 3rd century, Saint Cyprian expresses his persuasion of the existence of a penalty after granting ecclesiastical peace, if the penance that preceded it was not full; such a charge, if not satisfied by it on earth, postulates an atonement after death[17]. This way of putting the question offers a probable explanation for why there were so few testimonies about purgatory until that time.[18] since the custom of not giving peace (absolution) was in force for a long time until after performing a penance that was considered complete.
3. Saint Augustine frequently speaks of “amendatory fire” or “purgatory fire”[19]. The doctrine becomes common among Latins from this time[20].
4. Since the 4th century all the Greek Fathers also affirm the existence of purgatory: thus, p. e.g., Saint Ephrem, Saint Basil, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.[21]
5. There are testimonies of the use of praying for the dead as early as the second century in both the East and the West. Tertullian, at the beginning of the 3rd century, speaks of this use as something received by tradition (the use, therefore, was already very old then).[22]. The oldest liturgical testimonies contain prayers for the deceased[23]. «Moreover, in the Pauline churches themselves there were some deprecatory practices for the deceased (cf. 1 Cor 15:29)»[24]
The medieval discussion with the separated orientals about purgatory[25]
The separated Easterners had no controversy with the Latins on this matter until the 13th century. In the year 1231 or 1232, in a conversation between a Latin and an Eastern bishop, the latter greatly disliked the idea of fire in purgatory.[26]. Apparently, this doctrine sounded to him as if it were identical with the Origenist doctrine of a temporal hell. This colloquium was the origin of the controversy, which lasted until the Council of Florence, in which the Greeks challenged, above all, the fire purgatory (sometimes also any punishment) and accuse the Latin conception of purgatory of originism.[27]; They admit, however, an intermediate state for the souls of those who die with light sins (the crimes of these sinners are condoned by God, moved by the prayers of the Church; prayers must therefore be made for the deceased).
At the Council of Florence, the opposition of the Greeks was reduced to two points: they rejected the noun “purgatory” (apparently, they did not want it to be conceived as a place) and fire. The two things were omitted in the text of the council, which, however, speaks of “purgatorial punishments.”
In all the medieval discussion, a total denial of the idea of purgatory never appears among the separated Easterners. Such total denial occurred for the first time in the 17th century, in some who were under the influence of the doctrine of the Protestant reformers. This influence was the origin of the subsequent fluctuation. It must be said, however, that there are also many today who admit an intermediate state and the effectiveness of prayer and suffrages for the dead; Such authors generally admit some kind of pain (sadness) in this intermediate state, but they deny that souls are purified by pain (souls are purified by divine condonation, which is obtained through the prayers of the Church).[28].
Modern problem about purgatory
1. The purification of love.
The medieval discussion with separated Easterners about purgatory is sobering. The Easterners saw in the Latin presentation of the theology of purgatory a survival of the Origenist temporal hell.
There is a risk of presenting purgatory as a kind of temporary hell. This has not only had bad consequences from the ecumenical point of view (medieval discussion with the Easterners), but it implies a false perspective: hell and purgatory cannot be built in parallel, introducing only a temporal limitation into the latter. The deep meaning of both states is not only different, but opposite, since the psychological situations that are experienced in them are of opposite sign: hell focuses on hate, while purgatory focuses on love.[29].
Perhaps it is appropriate to insist on the primary importance of love in purgatory. Delayed love in the possession of the beloved Person (delay of the vision of God) produces suffering, and in that suffering it is purified. Let us think of purgatory, above all, as a purification of love[30].
2. The fire of purgatory.
Some documents of the ecclesiastical teaching speak of the fire of purgatory[31]. Given the history of the issue (possible introduction of the theme due to parallelism with hell and deliberate exclusion of this element in the definition of the Council of Florence), it does not seem that the need to admit a penalty of meaning truly different from the suffering of delayed love in the possession of the beloved Person is imposed as clearly as in the case of hell. Perhaps in the case of purgatory a metaphorical interpretation is not impossible, explaining the expression “fire” as the same suffering that comes from the delay of the vision of God.
Author: Cándido Pozo, SJ
Source: Cándido Pozo, SJ, Theology of the afterlife, BAC, Madrid, 1980, pp. 515-533.
GRADES
[1] From the Leipzig dispute is taken proposition 37 of those condemned by Leo In Luther’s mentality this proposition is related to the denial of the canonicity of the two books of Maccabees (as is known, Luther denied their canonicity); book 2, c.12 v. 43ff, contains, as we will see, one of the classic passages on the existence of purgatory.
[2] «Fide in Christum rectissime docuisti [Zwingli addresses Luther] salutem obtineri; sed cur secundum hanc doctrinam tribuis quid nescio quibus clavibus? Cur purgatorium non evertis? Cur non agnoscis unum ac solum mediatorem dei atque hominum Christum Iesum? Amica exegesis, id est: expositio eucharistiae negocii, ad Martinum Lutherum: Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, t.5: CorpRef 92,718. It is important to note the connection that Zwingli made shortly before between the keys, purgatory and the intercession of the saints: “Sic enim evangelii rationem dei munere pervestigavimus, ut eo corruant Pontificiaeclaves, purgatorium, el ficta divorum intercessio” (ibid., p.716).
[3] It is interesting that the only passage in which the Council of Trent expounds the doctrine about purgatory is found in the Decree of iustificatione ses.6 can.30: Denz. 840; we copy the text later. HeDecree of purgatory, promulgated in the 25th session (Denz. 983), is disciplinary, as we will see in the paragraph “Purgatory in the councils of Florence and Trent”, number 2.
[4] One or the other is realized depending on whether or not the man has fiducial faith, which, ultimately, is a free gift from God or the fruit of predestination.
[5] Nihil ipsis iustificatis amplius deesse credendum est, quominus plene illis quidem operibus, quae in Deo sunt facta, divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse, et vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore (si tamen in gratia decesserint, Rev 14,131) consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur. COUNCIL OF TRENT, sess.6 c.16: Denz. 809.
[6] “Si quis hominem semel iustificatum dixerit [… ] posse in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilege, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia: anathema sit.” Sess.6 can.23: Denz. 833.
[7] “Si quis post acceptam iustificationis gratiam cuilibet peccatori paenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum aeternae poenae deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis, exsolvendae vel in hoc saeculo vel infuture in purgatorio, antequam ad regna caelorum aditus patere possit: anathema sit.” Sess.6 can.30: Denz. 840.
[8] The most common position is that of SAINT THOMAS, according to which (bad q.7 a. 11), venial faults are forgiven in purgatory due to an increase in the fervor of charity, which is neither free nor meritorious; Since man was not an enemy of God when he died (he was in a state of sanctifying grace), a free conversion to God is not required for the forgiveness of venial guilt, but it is enough for the union with Him, which already existed, to become more intense and fervent. This explanation has the advantage of putting purgatory in relation to the two chapters of imperfections of justice itself and not only to the second (the temporal punishment). This better respects the fact that, for example, INNOCENT IV, in the epistle Sub catholicae professione, has put purgatory in relation not only to the crime of temporal punishment, but also to the venial sins themselves: «[Cum] ipsi Graeci vere ac indubitanter credere et affirmare dicantur, animas illorum, qui, suscepta poenitentia, ea non peracta, vel who sine mortali sine, cum venialibus tamen et minutis decedunt, purgari post mortem, et posse Ecclesiae suffragús adiuvari. Denz. 456.
[9] The context is similar, but not the same: in the council the three ecclesial states are described, including the terrestrial one (the pilgrim Church), while in the Paul’s Profession of Faith VI There is talk of the Church of the afterlife (heaven and purgatory, orChurch triumphant and Church purgative).
[10] See John Paul II’s later catechesis on purgatory (note from Apologetica.org).
[11] On the contrary, we do not see the value of some texts that are sometimes adduced in favor of purgatory. Thus, for example, Mt 12:32: «And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven; But whoever says it against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come. Personally, we do not think that the formula “neither in this world nor in the next” is intended to imply that other sins can be forgiven in the world to come; It seems that such a formula is nothing more than a strong way of affirming that the sin against the Holy Spirit is never forgiven. However, this text is the one that seems best, for the idea of purgatory, to M. MEINERTZ, Theology of New Testaments t.1 (Bonn 1950) p.68.
[12] For the Jewish background of 2 Mac 12:43ff, cf. FELIPE DE FUENTERRABÍA, Purgatory in pre-Christian Jewish literature: XV SPANISH BIBLE WEEK, p.115-150; for 1 Cor 3:12-15, cf. CH. W. FISHBURNE, 1 Corinthians III, 10-15 and the Testament of Abraham: NewTestStud 17 (1970-1971) 109-115, whose value, obviously, depends on the dating accepted for theTestament of Abraham, and which Fishburne believes he can place before the first epistle to the Corinthians, with serious reasons.
[13] Cf. E. O’BRIEN, The Scriptural Proof for the Existence of Purgatory from 2 Machabees 12,43-45: Science Eccl 2 (1949) 80‑108. See also J. NTEDIKA, L’évocation de l’au-delà dans la prière pour les morts (Louvain-Paris 1971) p.1-7, who provides quite a few interesting data; Ntedika is right to point out that the text does not say that the dead soldiers “expiaient dans l’autre monde” (p.6); but it could be a mistake to insist on distancing oneself from the manuals and dictionaries that consider this text “comme l’une des preuves de la doctrine du purgatoire” (bid., nt.9). It is not about a test, butof a foundation, a starting point for subsequent dogmatic progress.
[14] Deny that it could be purgatory here, because Judas could not think that those deceased were anywhere else, but in the sheol (cf. J. GNILKA, Fegfeuer II. Lehre der Schrift: LexTheolKirch 4,50), it seems to us that this is a way of considering the problem that is too “localist”, in addition to forgetting that at that time various states used to be distinguished within the sheol; The important thing is not the “place” where Judas thought these deceased were, but how he conceived their situation.
[15] F. PRAT, The Theology of Saint Paul t.1 38th ed. (Paris 1949) p.113.
[16] We say “speculatively” because, in fact, already then there was the custom of praying for the dead, as we will see immediately in n.5 of this paragraph.
[17] «Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, aliud missum in carcerem non exire inde donec solvat novissimum quadrantem, aliud statim fidei et virtutis accipere mercedem, aliud pro peccato longo dolore cruciatum emundari et purgari diu igne, aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse, aliud “denique pendere in diem iudicii ad sententiam Domini, aliud statim a Domino coronari.” Epistle 55,20,3: Ed. BAYARD, 2nd ed. t.2 (Paris 1961) p.144 (Epistle 52: PL 3,786). Cf. P. JAY, Saint Cyprian and the doctrine of purgatoire: RechTheolAneMed 27 (1960) 133-136.
[18] Before Saint Cyprian, Tertullian had written: “In summa, cum carcerem illum, quem evangelium demonstrat, inferos intelligimus et novissimum quadrantem modicum quoque delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum interpretemur, nemo dubitat animam aliquid pensare penises inferos salva resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quoque.” Of spirit 58.8: CCL 2.869 (PL 2.751). On Clement of Alexandria, cf. K. SCIANIOLE, Läuterung nach dem Alle und pneumatische Auferstehung bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Münster i. W. 1974); although the topics listed on p. 110-114 (to correctly read the first seven lines of p. 114 it is necessary to resort to Schmöle’s own errata) may be secondary in terms of the influence exerted on the formation of Clement’s mind, they are not in terms of objective theological importance.
[19] See the texts of Saint Augustine, which E. PORTALIÉ has gathered and commented on, Augustin, Saint:DictTheolCath 1,2447ff. Cf. also LENNERZ, Of novissimis, Rome 1950, p. 158s. As more specific studies on the topic, cf. J. J. CAVIGAN, Sancti Augustini doctrine of Purgatorio, praesertim in opere De Civitate Dei: CiudDios 167 (1954 11) 283-297; J. NTEDIKA, The evolution of the doctrine of purgatoire chez Saint Augustin (Paris 1966).
[20] Cf. PREMM, p.606. Specifically, for particular authors, cf. P. JAY, The purgatoire in the preaching of Saint Césaire d’Arles: RechTheolAncMed 24 (1957) 5‑14; C. DAGENS, Saint Grégoire le Grand. Culture and Christian experiences (Paris 1977) p.423ff; Well, The eschatological doctrine of the “Prognosticon futuri saeculi” of St. Julian of Toledo: EstEcl 45 (1970) 198ff.
[21] Cf. PREMM, p.605.
[22] Cf. crown 3.3: CCL, 2.1043 (PL 2.79). Testimonies, both Eastern and Latin, about the tradition of praying for the dead in the 2nd and 3rd centuries in NTEDIKA, L’evocation de l’au-delá dans la prière pour les morts (Louvain-Paris 1971) p.21-30.
[23] CF. PREMM, p.606. For Western liturgies, cf. NTEDIKA, L’évocation p.114-135; although with certain imprecisions, they are prayers for the forgiveness of sins, as well as for the liberation of certain penalties: dogmatic progress is frequently made through the passage from vague formulas to nuanced formulas: which sins (=venial) can find remission in the afterlife, and from which penalties (=temporal) liberation can be achieved.
[24] Cf. E. B. ALLO, Premiere Épître aux Corinthiens, 2nd ed. (Paris 1934) p.411-414. It deals there (1 Cor 15:29) with the use of being baptized for the dead, of which Saint Paul speaks, without seeming to condemn it. In M. Rissi, Die Taufe für die Toten (Zürich-Stuttgart 1962) and A. MANRIQUE, Biblical theology of baptism. Formulation of the early Church (Madrid 1977) p.254-257, many interesting data will be found (especially in Rissi), although both are uncomfortable with the idea of a “baptism for the dead.”
[25] For the whole question of the separated orientals, cf. M. GORDILLO, Compendium Theologiae Orientalis, 2 ed. (Romae 1939) p. 184-191; MICHEL, P.92‑96; CONGAR, a.c.: The mystery of death and celebration p.294-308.
[26] The documentation of the colloquium has been published and commented by M. RONCAGLIA, O.F.M.,Georges Bardanes Métropolite de Corfou et Barthélemy de l’Ordre Franciscain (Rome 1953).
[27] «But not only these things, but also, following Origen, [the Latins] put an end to hell, proposing I don’t know what purgatory in place of its torment, into which purgatory, those who sinned, they say, entering, pay the penalties until the last day. Which none of the saints maintained, since it destroys the words of the Lord, which establish that the pains of hell are eternal, just as life is eternal. SIMEON OF THESSALONIKI, Dialogue against Haerese 23: PG 155,116.
[28] See the bibliography cited in note 25. It should be noted, however, the existence of a certain line of Byzantine tradition, attested in the 7th century in Cyprus, which thinks of an intermediate state between salvation and damnation for those who do not deserve either of these two states, but which is not purgatory (purification in order to reach heaven), but rather a permanent and eternal situation that can be assimilated to that of children who died without baptism; cf. F. HALKIN, The vision of Kaioumos et le sort eternel by Philentolos Olympiou: Analecta Bollandiana 63 (1945) 56-64; idem, Between ciel et enfer: Philentolos: Analecta Bollandiana 90 (1972) 323-327.
[29] Cf. J. GUITTON, The illness and contemporary mentality: L’enfer p.344‑347. It is curious that this approach, dear to modern theology, is highly accentuated by a woman from the beginning of the Renaissance, who was not exactly a specialist in theology, but a mystic, SAINT CATHERINE OF GENOA, Treaty of Purgatory (Genoa 1551).
[30] Therefore, it is unfair to say, as BOROS does, Erlöstes Dasein p.97, that his theory on purification at the time of death – hardly admissible for dogmatic reasons – would avoid (only it?) the inconveniences of a terrifying presentation of purgatory: «Die Hypothese der Endentscheidung im Tod erlaubt uns, mit einigen unglaubhaften, unwürdigen und grotesken Vorstellungen über das Fegfeuer aufzuräumen. Der Reinigungsort ist sicher keine riesige Folterstadt, kein „kosmisches Konzentrationslager“, in dem klagende, seufzende und jammernde Kreaturen von Gott bestraft werden». Without thinking at all about the theory of the final option, already at the end of the 15th century a Saint Catherine of Genoa would not have recognized purgatory in this caricature that Boros makes. Long before her, a Saint Julián of Toledo would not have recognized him either; cf, Pozo, a.c.: EstEcl 45 (1970) 199. CONGAR, The Purgatoire: Le mystére de la mort et sa célébration, p.322-336, believes that the theology of purgatory must be rethought in a broader perspective, in which all intermediate eschatology has a sense of waiting for a still future complement; the theory is proposed there with such breadth that it even covers the theme of the “hope” of Christ himself until the parousia arrives.
[31] “Illo enim transitorio igne peccata utique, non tamen criminalia seu capitalia, quae prius per paenitentiam non fuere remissa, sed parva et minuta purgantur, quae post mortem etiam gravant, si in vita fuerunt relaxata.” INNOCENT IV, epistle Sub catholicae profession: Denz. 456 (838). “Item si credidisti et credis, quod igne crucientur ad tempus, et quod mox purgatae, etiam citra diem iudicii, ad veram et aeternam beatitudem perveniant, quae in faciali Dei visione et dilectione consistit.” CLEMENT VI, epistle Super quibusdam: Dz 570s (1067). “Credimus animas eorum omnium, qui in gratia Christi moriuntur – sive quac adhuc Purgatorii igne expiandae sunt, sive quae statim a corpore separatae, sicut Bonus Latro, a Iesu in Paradisum suscipiuntur – Populum Dei constituere post mortem.” PAUL VI, Profession of faith, n.28: AAS 60 (1968) 444.
![[24]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_EM1XBJYyS7A/Su5q_u0oOoI/AAAAAAAAHBI/ruyG-bbH0gE/s1600-h/entierro%5B7%5D.jpg){kind=link}