What is Purgatory?

A friend of mine who has grown up in baptists churches all of her life sent my a question on how the Catholic doctrine on Purgatory came about and it's place in Catholic soteriology (although she didn't use those exact words). Does it eliminate Hell?

This is by no means a complete explanation, but I though it might be worth posting.

Purgatory doesn't eliminate Hell, and it's really more of a state than a place (although you'll see terminology for both state and locale in many descriptions). The Church has always taught that there are temporal effects of sin (consequences) that persist after our sins have been forgiven by Christ. (You can see references to this in the early Church Fathers Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyprian and others). Some of these effects or consequences are readily visible (immediate physical, economic, or social consequences) and some are spiritual and psychological (for example, our disposition toward a certain sin or a lingering anger or resentment). Another way to look at these effects is as attachments to worldly things—essentially, something or someone to which we cling that hinders our ability to give ourselves fully to God. In any case, these attachments and effects have to be removed before we are perfected and can stand in God's presence (since nothing imperfect can stand in God's presence). Sometimes we deal with them in life, and sometimes after.

However, if we get to Purgatory, there's no question of where we're bound. Purgatory is like the mudroom of Heaven—it's where we get cleaned up after our long trip. The word itself comes from the word "purgare," which means (to make clean or purify). And that's pretty much what happens.... we're made clean of any impediments or residual effects of sin prior to entering the beatific vision (that is, God's direct presence). Some people finish this work before they die and don't go to Purgatory. Many of us still require a bit of freshening up. I mean, who doesn't want a shower after a long trip before going to greet your family?

I mentioned last night in a discussion on this topic that Purgatory is yet another sign of God's mercy. None of us are truly perfect, and we only even approach perfection through God's grace. If perfection were required for salvation, I dare say not many Christians (if any of us) would make the cut. God knows this and gives us every opportunity to come to Him.

Scripturally, there are allusions to a time in which people aren't quite in their final destination or are at least in need of assistance. Matthew 12:32 mentions people who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit not being forgiven in this world or the next, which suggests that in some cases, some sins required satisfaction in the next world (while others, those blasphemies against the Holy Spirit, would not be forgiven even then). St. Isidore of Seville, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Bede all interpreted this passage to point to a time of final satisfaction for some sins or their effects. St. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 that some people's works may earn them a greater reward, while others may be purged: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

And then we have the question about prayers for the dead, which is a practice going back to the Jews of the Maccabean period. One of the books of the Septuagint* (2 Maccabees 13) tells the story of Judas Maccabee ordering prayers for the dead. Jewish Tradition also has the mourner's kaddish, which is a prayer Jews offer for the dead for set periods of time following death. Tradition has always interpreted this to mean that the dead are in need of our prayers to assist them on their final journey, which is also one of the reasons Catholics and Orthodox perform penance for themselves and for everyone else. Penance serves as satisfaction for the temporal consequences of sin. We cannot ever repay what Jesus has done for us in forgiving our sins, but we can attempt temporal reparation and healing where the effects of sin persist. This is how we join ourselves to His saving work. But this doesn't mean we're adding to His work, since any good we do comes from Him anyway.

She followed up with a reflection on what she has been taught about justification and asked when Catholics believe the unrepentant go to Hell. I talked a little first about the Catholic notion of justification, then explained what happens to those who are unrepentant.

[T]his is where the debate about justification, sanctification, and salvation took place during the Reformation. However, Luther's take on it was a bit different from yours. He believed that we are so depraved that we could be justified in purely an extrinsic sense--that is, we are never actually cleansed, but Christ "covers up" our sins so God doesn't look at them. The Catholic Church teaches that those sins are actually wiped away and that we, through the process of sanctification, are perfected and made holy. So justification imputes grace, which frees us from sin and changes the soul (over time) to conform more completely to Christ.

However, as with physical injuries, there is often still a wound that has to heal or defects that need to be repaired. Another way to look at it is how a good parent deals with children. If Seth broke somebody's window playing baseball, then apologized to you, you would naturally forgive him. However, you'd also require him to replace the window, would you not? That's reparation—simple justice. God doesn't require from us the penalty due to sin, but we do sometimes have to repair the damage we do to the Body of Christ, the Church. (By the way, we believe that all sin is both personal--damaging to self--and corporate--damaging to the Church.)

You will find that scripture can be read [note: this should have said "interpreted"] in ways to support all three positions, which is why Catholics are supposed to rely as well on Sacred Tradition (what has been passed down through Apostolic succession from the earliest days of the Church) and the teaching office of the Church (magisterial authority). Without these, you get many interpretations and new denominations with each. Christ left us a Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth as Paul said (1 Timothy 3:14-16), to be our guide.

Souls of those who are finally unrepentant (which is what we call "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit") go to Hell at death. Some theologians debate about whether there is a final choice that each of use makes at that point, but even if there's a "final" choice, it would be based upon the personal decisions and actions of the individual and whether they embraced God's forgiveness prior to death. Christ is our final judge, and He confirms the decision we've already made through our lives and our acceptance or nonacceptance of His gift. The Church also teaches that there's a personal judgment (meaning one that takes place immediately upon death) and a final judgment (which takes place at the end of time). It's at this final judgment where we come to understand the fullness of His plan. I think it will make His mysterious plan make sense to us, whereas now we can see only through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13).

*A Greek translation of Jewish scripture from around 3rd century BC. Several of these books were rejected by Luther and the Reformers but were in constant use by Christians and standard scripture of the Jewish Diaspora prior to the end of the first century AD. The New Testament actually quotes from the Septuagint translation. The books of Maccabees were where the Hanukkah tradition originates.

Israel Photos Redux

Julie D. posted a beautiful lithograph by David Roberts of what appears to be a view of Bethlehem from the north (mostly settlements there now, I believe). I commented that many of Roberts' lithographs are of scenes I've photographed (inexpertly, I admit). She asked me to repost some of those. Unfortunately, I'm a bit strapped for time this weekend, so I'm just posting some Jaffa photos that I missed and added a list links to my older posts.

After browsing quickly through, I'm surprised at just how many I did not publish. Might have to remedy that. The photo below is a view from the north of Old Jaffa from the beach just across the street and south from David Intercontinental and the Dan. It looks like it might have been taken from the same vantage point as one of the Roberts' lithographs.



This mosque is on the northern edge of Old Jaffa.



Here's the minaret from the same mosque at sunset.



The door on this house caught my attention. The house is on the west side of the main plaza—hard to miss if you ever visit.



One of the narrow streets of Old Jaffa,



When I say Jaffa is an ancient city, I do mean ancient (some 7500 years old). The traditional founder of Jaffa is Japheth, a son of Noah, although this story is not universally accepted. The photo below shows some possibly bronze-age archaeological ruins.



Here are links to some of my older posts with Israel photos. There are also a few travel reports that I haven't linked. If you click the Israel label, you should see the others.

Some reminders from the War of Independence

Various photos of holy sites (Jaffa, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Galilee)

Akko and Haifa

Caesarea Maritima

Galilee

Jaffa and Old City Jerusalem

And then there was this visitor I encountered at the Holy Sepulchre.

Go see Julie's post, which prompted my recollection, and click through to the other lithographs.

Random Bits

My wife, daughter, and I had the pleasure of attending the Awake and Alive tour on Thursday. Now, those of you who spend any time with me know that my tastes in music run from the more traditional (especially in liturgy) to the rather hard and heavy stuff. The Awake and Alive tour would be an example of the latter.

Four bands played: The Letter Black, Decyfer Down (one of my favorites), Hawk Nelson (one of my daughter's favorites), and Skillet (the headliner, who we all like). All four bands put on a great show. When I see bands like this, I sometimes miss playing professionally. While I enjoy playing for Theology on Tap, there's nothing like having a stage, stacks of speakers, and a few dozen par 24s overhead. Maybe if my band can start writing our own songs, we might be able to do a bit more than a set of covers once a month.

One of the nice things about Christian acts is that they often come out to their merchandise table afterward and talk with people. The singer and guitar player for The Letter Black were mixing for a good part of the show after they finished. They seem like a nice couple.

I've noticed some hits from someone in Cary, NC a few times and am wondering if it's a former coworker or if its just someone who happens to live in the Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.

More prayers, please.

My (step)-grandson is going in for some, uh, technical adjustments in the nether regions tomorrow. He's been recovering from a cold this last week, so please keep him in your prayers.

Theology isn't exactly brain surgery. Or rocket science.

The Darwins have been posting clips from That Mitchell & Webb Look. This one is pretty funny.

Just what is Transubstantiation?

I see a claim on Catholic blogs every now and then concerning the physical presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. No doubt there is a physical presence in the Eucharist, but it is of the accidents of bread and wine. Christ's presence is substantial and sacramental (as noted in canon 1513 of the Council of Trent) leaving no substance of bread and wine. However, the accidents are not the accidents of Christ's physical body (which would naturally be repugnant). The confusion goes back to the time of the scholastics, roughly the 9th century. It was resurrected after the Protestant Reformers also began to question the settled doctrine and Sacred Tradition.

A monk by the name of Radbert Paschasius made the claim that the Eucharist was, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "converted into the real body of Christ, into the very body which was born of Mary and crucified." A monk of the same Abbey by the name of Ratramnus argued that there was no conversion of the bread but that the body of Christ was present in a spiritual way. The latter was forced to concede his view although whether he actually taught the mere symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist is up for debate.

Later on, Berengarius of Tours clearly held an understanding that could not be reconciled with the doctrine, which later came to be known as Transubstantiation. He also believed in a spiritual (as well as intellectual) presence of Christ. So the question was not whether Christ presence was merely symbolic—that is, whether the Eucharist is an empty symbol or a symbol plus something more. The question was whether His presence was in spirit or in some greater degree. Protestants are divided on the view of symbolic or spiritual presence. Catholics and Orthodox hold that this presence is essential.

The term "Transubstantiation" was first used by Hildebert of Tours and found its way into official usage at the Fourth Lateran Council. St. Thomas Aquinas developed a fuller theology on Transubstantiation. However, this is not to say that the underlying concepts did not exist prior to the time of the scholastics. In fact, the metaphysical basis of this theology comes from the Aristotelian notions of essence (substance) and accidents. However, even many of the early Church Fathers demonstrate a fairly developed theology on this matter, particularly in the Greek Fathers of the East and with St. Ambrose in the West.

What, then, is Transubstantiation? It is when, during the consecration of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ while the accidents of bread and wine remain. The confusing word in this mix is "substance," which in common parlance refers to a thing's material. However, in Aristotelian metaphysics, the substance is that which "stands underneath" (substantia)—what most of us would now refer to as the essence of a thing—that which makes a thing what it is.

We are used to accidents changing. Bread that has been left out and is moldy is still bread (until the chemical composition completely breaks down). The accidents of a human being are two legs, two arms, genitalia, a torso, a head, and so on. The essence of a human being remains even if the accidents are altered. A person who loses a limb or is left without sexual organs because of an injury is still a human being. What's more, we expect the accidents of human being to change over time. We can even change both substance and accidents of a thing through chemical and phsyical processes. Burn a piece of bread, and eventually neither its accidents or substance remain.

Transubstantiation is the opposite of the process described above. It is when the change occurs to the substance or essence of a thing rather than to its accidents. What starts as bread and wine, through consecration by the words of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, become something else. They become Christ's Body and Blood in essence—not spiritually but essentially.

To nonbelievers, this seems like nonsense on stilts. Granted, much of what Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe when taken in detail seems nonsensical. Of course, so does much of modern science, unless one understands the thinking that leads up to the conclusion. This fact is why atheists don't fair well in debates against Christians who have considered their faith through the eyes of reason. (And the same can be said for Christians who do not question and test what they believe against reasonable and consistent standards.) However, I can understand this skepticism, particularly to people who only accept a materialist view of the universe.

What has always puzzled me is how Christians consider it impossible for the God who created the universe from nothing and who revealed Himself through the Incarnation to transform the essence of bread and wine into His Body and Blood. It seems like a rather minor miracle* for someone who fed multitudes with 5 to 7 loaves, raised people from the dead, Himself rose from the dead, and altered the very course of history in the short span of 33 years through a ministry preaching love, mercy, and repentance. God, who created all things and holds all things in existence, and who transformed death and suffering into salvation, certainly has the power to change the substance of His own creation.

*Not to mention the fact that it flies in the face of the obvious words of scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you." Usually Jesus explained when He was being unclear, but for some reason, He didn't "explain" His words in John 6:53 and was willing to let His disciples walk away. With the persistent witness of the early Church Fathers on the matter, it's a shame that many Christians dismiss 1450 years of Sacred Tradition.

Good evening, Plano!

Okay, actually Addison, Texas, I guess, but Plano is pretty much where I'm spending my days training this week. I had a fairly uneventful flight in yesterday, albeit delayed by an hour, which put me smack in the middle of Dallas rush hour during a fairly decent rain shower. Not wild about doing 70 MPH in the rain when I don't know where I'm going. Next time, I rent the GPS.

I had hoped to get some more of my theology homework done this evening (DVD lectures by Marcellino D'Ambrosio). However, after my typical first-night hotel experience (about four hours of sleep total), and a busy day getting lost in perhaps the most secure corporate environment I've ever encountered, I just don't have a whole lot of energy left. Think I'll pack it in early.

Why doesn't the Church allow intercommunion?

A few weeks ago I served as lector at Mass. Typically, when we attend Mass, we sit either in the north transept of the cathedral or, if we are serving as lectors, in the south transept. This allows us a view of the front row of either opposite side of the nave. On this particular day, a young man was sitting in the front pew on the opposite side. He clearly wasn't familiar with the liturgy and seemed to be pretty ambivalent about being there. When communion came along, he seemed unsure of what to do, so eventually (well after the rest of his pew had gotten up and into the communion line), he slowly ambled to the center aisle, got in line, and went up to receive the Eucharist.

Now, I've seen people pocket hosts before and immediately leave the Church, and I've seen other people who seem to treat as a light snack that they leisurely nibble. I'm more concerned with the former, but the latter also betrays poor formation. I left my pew to speak with the young man in question. As it turned out, he had consumed the host and didn't realize that he wasn't really supposed to join in. I caught up with him later to explain a bit and to invite him back (as well as to apologize for putting him on the spot, although I don't know that anyone else even noticed).

I've since decided that I'm going to embark on a book project in my <fe>voluminous spare time</fe>—specifically, a guide for non-Catholic visitors to the Catholic liturgy. The book would explain some basics about Catholic worship, note some of the distinct doctrines pertaining to statuary, saints, and, of course, explain why non-Catholics or non-Orthodox should not receive the Eucharist. To phrase this question correctly, why do Catholics reserve the Eucharist for Catholics and Orthodox only?

Note that phrasing because it is important. I did not write, "Why do Catholics exclude non-Catholics from communion?" The reason for my choice of phrasing stems from the intent of the Church. It is not meant to exclude but to make clear that communion means something. It is not merely sharing a common ritual or empty symbol but a sharing of an essence that binds us together in faith. That bond is part of what we call "communion," but there are external manifestations in other aspects of Catholic doctrine and liturgy. In addition, there are serious theological differences that make full communion elusive. Eucharist, being the foremost sign of communion in the Church, naturally stands as representative of commonality of doctrine, liturgy, and faith. Where there is no commonality, there is really no communion, despite how we might act ritually.

Protestants are fond of attributing to St. Augustine the following statement when discussing the matter of doctrine: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Sadly, there seems to be considerable disagreement about whether he actually made this statement. However, even had he made the statement, one is still left with a question: who decides what is and what is not essential?

Continuity of Apostolic succession (episcopacy) is also a critical matter, as the validity of some sacraments in a Church depend on this continuity, which is why only those churches considered to have valid sacraments may intercommunicate, given the appropriate circumstances.

For Catholics, a proper understanding of authority and of the Eucharist are essential. For the early Church, Apostolic authority and the uniqueness of the Eucharistic mystery were essentials. These cannot be dismissed as minor details for us because we have always considered them essential.* Always. To ask Catholics to dispense with these elements (and others) would be like asking Jews to recast their understanding of themselves as a people without any reference to the Exodus or Passover. They are foundational aspects of the faith. They may not be the only foundational aspects, but they are foundational and essential nonetheless.

So very high on the list of reason for restricting intercommunication is the serious matter that we are not in communion so long as we have such divergent opinions on basic matters of faith. It doesn't mean Catholics hate people of other faiths or wish to see them outside of God's grace. It is a recognition, and also a respect for, the fact that we have serious doctrinal differences that we cannot just brush aside. We take non-Catholics seriously when they say that they don't believe what we believe, particularly concerning the Eucharist.

However, that's not the only reason. There is also a matter of Christian charity. The Church has always maintained that we must prepare ourselves to be worthy** to receive the Eucharist by examining our consciences to ensure that we are not guilty of any grave sin that has not been confessed. As St. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Paul notes physical illnesses and even death among those who have eaten unworthily. At very least, we are concerned about spiritual health. Receiving Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is itself gravely sinful. We as Catholics do no good to someone by encouraging them to an act that may, given the circumstances, be sinful. If we do, then we are also morally liable for whatever spiritual damage ensues.

*I write this in full recognition that some Catholics don't understand this teaching or, if they do understand it, don't accept it in the way that the Church means it. There are also people who understand it in a flawed fashion.

**Of course, we can only be worthy once we have accepted Christ's forgiveness for our sins. So worthiness is contingent on Christ's grace, not on our actions.

***<fe> = irony

Welcome!

I've had a slight uptick of vistors since Julie D. and Mark Shea posted my prayer requests. Welcome! I will try to post something amusing in the upcoming days. Tomorrow night is our local Theology on Tap, and I will be providing music, along with my band, Dark Night Lifting. Unfortunately, our drummer has a conflict and has to be in Ontario, Ore. with the BSU Blue Thunder Marching Band, so we will have a guest drummer.

I might share a little about a couple of book projects I might be taking on (as if I really need something more to do).

Grace and peace to you all!

Rite of Candidacy Today

Greetings, everyone. As of today, I'm officially a candidate for the diaconate, and my wife has been accepted for lay ministry formation. The Rite of Candidacy and Rite of Acceptance for Lay Ministry Formation took place today at Holy Apostles Catholic Church in Meridian, Idaho, Bishop Michael Driscill presiding.

We've been in training for the last 15 months and have another three years to go, but this is the first official rite along the way. I have to say that doing both diaconal formation and grad work in theology simultaneously is a bit challenging, but I'm happy to bee steeping heavily in the theology, history, and liturgy of the Church.

Please pray for all of us who were accepted today that we will serve God and the Church faithfully along with our priests and bishop.