Jason wrote: Purgatorial punishments by which sins are cleansed, are for the express purpose of making satisfaction for sin, inflicted by God's holiness and justice on an albeit justified person, which is necessary for the full remission of sin and to placate the divine justice due to their sin. That is, these purgatorial punishments are inflicted by God's sanctity and justice for the purpose of expiation...<br><br>Scott responds: Again, Jason overstates the case a bit, attempting to prove a point. Rather than just listen to the "opinions" Jason stated above, let's look at some real Catholic teaching on the matter...Hence we see, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Purgatory is not an absolute necessity for all Christians to endure, for it is possible that one could reach complete purification on this earth. We see that the suffering endured is not some vengence from God, as Jason appears to imply in his carefully selected words.<br><br>Jason writes: First of all, I myself wrote Purgatory is not an absolute necessity, " So yes, the justified are still subject to the necessary wrath of God by which they make satisfactions which placate divine justice (unless they are a martyr, or somehow make enough satisfactions prior to death)"<br><br>Secondly, your criticisms against my overstating the case and as implying a kind of vengeance using "carefully selected words" is, to your chagrin, most laughable since I merely used the language of your own pope! Surely if I had put things in my own words you would have accused me of misrepresenting Catholic dogma, so I choose to use the very language of your own pope and you say I am using carefully crafted words to imply something that I never did or intended to do. Reminds me of Christ's criticism's to the Pharisees, "But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, "and saying: 'We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.' (Matthew 11:16-17). See, no matter how I represent the Catholic doctrine, you will be hasty to decry misrepresentation. But just to demonstrate again that my words are precisely the words of your own pope, check out my paragraph above highlighting my own words with the language of your own Chruch:<br><br><br>For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 2, Article 5, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>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 (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It is therefore necessary for the full remission and -- as it is called -- reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against His wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 2, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church (Council of Florence (1439), De novissimis)<br><br>That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. (Papal Encyclical, "Indulgentiarum Doctrina", Chapter 1, Article 3, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1967)<br><br>Once again, you have wasted much time correcting non-errors by your hasty analysis and conclusions. <br><br><br>Scott writes: I must add here, the Church often uses the terms of sanctified and justified synonymously<br><br>Jason: Precisely! Which is why I wrote what I did to RefBap in the first place. You are the one who wrote, "Catholics DO believe that "saving faith" is comprised of both "faith" and "works" but it's not our works that save. Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification. Such "works" do absolutely no good to one not already on the path to salvation. I hope this helps clarify.<br><br>You are the one who attempted to make a sharp distinction between Roman Catholic Justification and Sanctification (almost making it sound Protestant, as even RefBap commented herself), and now you turn around and say they are used synonymously! Which is it Scott? Is Sanctification something that good works lead to after Justification or is it used synonymously? You made a statement about Catholicism that was couched in Protestant language, which was not clarifying as you suggest, but rather confusing, as is witnessed by RefBap's response to you. It is very interesting to compare your comments with the very words of the Catechism you quote:<br><br>Scott: Our works, done in the state of grace, lead to sanctification.<br><br>Yet neither the Council of Trent nor the catechism use such language as good works lead to sanctification, as though it were not a present reality already or as though it were something different than increasing ones justification:<br><br>CCC 2813. "In the waters of Baptism, we have been 'washed . . . SANCTIFIED . . .JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'[2 Cor 6:11] Our Father calls us to holiness in the whole of our life, and since 'he is the source of (our) life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and . . .sanctification,' [I Cor 1:30 ; cf. 1 Thess 4:7.] both his glory and our life depend on the hallowing of his name in us and by us. Such is the urgency of our first petition. By whom is God hallowed, since he is the one who hallows? But since he said, 'You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy,' we seek and ask that we who were SANCTIFIED in Baptism may persevere in what we have begun to be. And we ask this daily, for we need sanctification daily, so that we who fail daily may cleanse away our sins by being SANCTIFIED continually.... We pray that this sanctification may remain in us.[St. Cyprian De Dom. orat. 12: PL 4,527A; Lev 20:26.]"<br><br><br>Good works do not lead to sanctification in Catholic theology, they increase and preserve that sanctification, which is akin to justification, and according to which, because of the righteousness that is inherit in them, they merit eternal life. That is the teaching of Trent, which you still have not dealt with:<br><br>Scott wrote: There is no "increase in justification" for justification is the "final phase" in the economy of salvation.<br><br>The "infallible" Council of Trent wrote: Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified (Council of Trent, Decrees on Justification, Chapter 10)<br><br>CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.<br><br>So I guess you are under the anathema of Trent if you claim that good works do not increase Justification obtained. That is, of course, a good thing, but don't try and make the Catholic church more appealing to us by shrouding its dogma in language pleasant to our hearing.<br><br><br>Scott: So, I submit to both Wes and Jason that what I initially said was not merely my own opinions, but quite reflective of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite Scriptural, and Scriptures themselves. I would hope that both Wes and Jason will have the integrity to apologize for falsely accusing me of posting only my opinions and not representing Church teaching.<br><br>Jason: This is one of the most ridiculous demands for an apology that I have ever seen. You accused me of misrepresenting Catholic doctrine by saying there is no increase in Justification (which you still have not dealt with according to Trent's own words teaching this) and you did so without citing any Catholic sources. I repeatedly asked you to show me my error and to provide the proof that your representation of Justification was the true one. Why in the world should I apologize for asking proof from you to backup your own claims? Up until your last post, you had only posted your own assertions without any reference to authoritative Catholic documents, and until you did, they were merely assertions! So now you go and post some and then ask for an apology because we said that you had not done so yet in our previous posts? Really Scott, if you can't comprehend earthly things, how will we discuss heavenly things? This is the silliest attempt to be the victim that I have seen in a long time.<br><br>Now if you go back and read the thread you will find that there was not an accusation of you not representing Church teaching in the first place (until you said Justification cannot be increased), rather couching it in a way that was more Protestant sounding than Catholic, as was evidenced by RefBap's own response. The remainder of the time was spent asking you to justify your accusation that I had misrepresented Catholic Justification. You have merely corrected things that I have not said or tried to correct me as leaving out things that I never intended to say because they were not relevant to the point I was discussing. The only two issues I have seen wherein we are in disagreement regarding RC Justification is whether it can be increased and perhaps whether or not works done in a justified state are meritorious.<br><br>So perhaps you can prune your posts from these unfounded lamentations of victimization and deal with whatever I have supposedly misrepresented one point at a time, then we can look at the Church's testimony on that issue and allow the viewer to decide whether there has been misrepresentation. I have no pre-commitment or interest in making the Catholic Church say something it does not say. Sufficient are the problems in Rome that I don't need to make them look any worse than they are.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Jason<br><br> Proverbs 29:20 Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<br>