I can understand why Roman apologists would want to develop this doctrine away. Christ is not as beautiful, glorious, gracious, and good for the believer under this system.
This article feels half finished. For instance, what doctrine exists that better reconciles mercy and justice of a sinner after death after death? Additionally you provided marginal evidence in the article and I don’t think truly answered the claims you made. “The Magisterium has consistently taught purgatory is retributive and good works can be done to help.”
I think this misunderstands the way that the Church teaches. In Her official capacity, She does not teach positively.
The magisterial teaching is in the form of the condemnation of things that you cannot believe. They are set up in pairs of opposing heresies, and between those opposing heresies there is a wide latitude for believers to rationalize what is going on.
On occasion, someone will come up with a new idea that is so far outside of the pale that it needs to be condemned as a new heresy, and soon after someone else usually argues so far in the other direction that you get the opposite heresy.
The prototypical example is with Christology. Orthodox Christology is what you get when you are neither an Arian nor an Apollinarian, neither a Nestorian nor a Monophysite.
With Justification, Orthodoxy exists when you are neither a Calvinist nor a Pelegian, neither a Jansenist nor a Semi-Pelegian.
Any explanation that is none of those things is an orthodox one. There are certainly strains of thought that are typically used to explain how to thread that needle, but those are the rationale, not the doctrine itself.
As such, to show your claim that Catholicism teaches that Purgatory is retributive (as opposed to many individual Catholics theorizing that Purgatory is retributive to explain how it works), you need an athenamatized statement claiming it is not retributive.
Even besides that, it appears that you don't quite have the full picture on what the normal way Catholics explain Merit and Sanctification is (the version you give we would condemn as Semi-Pelagianism, I believe). It's in S.T. I-II, Q.109-114 (the treatise on Grace). I especially direct you to Q.114, on Merit (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm )
Trying to read between the lines to find what your own preferred doctrine would be, would I be right that you’d rather Catholics believe that every confession and absolution results in the full and immediate restoration of the sinless baptismal state?
Retributively, yes: medicinally, no. Retributively wrong, because double jeopardy would happen. Medicinally right, to remove the remnants of sinful habits.
It’s the difference between God relating to us as the eternal judge and as a loving Father. We have been saved from the penalty of sin, and are now being saved from its power, and one day saved from its presence.
One of the fundamental differences here that never gets described is Catholics split grace into different categories. Most importantly here: justification and sanctification.
Justification saves you, sanctification makes you holy. Purgation, in this life through penance and prayer) and in the next life (purgatory proper) help you to be sanctified, or become more holy.
Sinful attachments need to be removed, by God’s grace, for this to be possible.
I hope this is a helpful way of seeing how Catholics look at this.
I can understand why Roman apologists would want to develop this doctrine away. Christ is not as beautiful, glorious, gracious, and good for the believer under this system.
This article feels half finished. For instance, what doctrine exists that better reconciles mercy and justice of a sinner after death after death? Additionally you provided marginal evidence in the article and I don’t think truly answered the claims you made. “The Magisterium has consistently taught purgatory is retributive and good works can be done to help.”
I think this misunderstands the way that the Church teaches. In Her official capacity, She does not teach positively.
The magisterial teaching is in the form of the condemnation of things that you cannot believe. They are set up in pairs of opposing heresies, and between those opposing heresies there is a wide latitude for believers to rationalize what is going on.
On occasion, someone will come up with a new idea that is so far outside of the pale that it needs to be condemned as a new heresy, and soon after someone else usually argues so far in the other direction that you get the opposite heresy.
The prototypical example is with Christology. Orthodox Christology is what you get when you are neither an Arian nor an Apollinarian, neither a Nestorian nor a Monophysite.
With Justification, Orthodoxy exists when you are neither a Calvinist nor a Pelegian, neither a Jansenist nor a Semi-Pelegian.
Any explanation that is none of those things is an orthodox one. There are certainly strains of thought that are typically used to explain how to thread that needle, but those are the rationale, not the doctrine itself.
As such, to show your claim that Catholicism teaches that Purgatory is retributive (as opposed to many individual Catholics theorizing that Purgatory is retributive to explain how it works), you need an athenamatized statement claiming it is not retributive.
Even besides that, it appears that you don't quite have the full picture on what the normal way Catholics explain Merit and Sanctification is (the version you give we would condemn as Semi-Pelagianism, I believe). It's in S.T. I-II, Q.109-114 (the treatise on Grace). I especially direct you to Q.114, on Merit (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm )
Who cares what they teach, they are so far from scripture it’s insane! Delusion. A few have been woken up so far.
Trying to read between the lines to find what your own preferred doctrine would be, would I be right that you’d rather Catholics believe that every confession and absolution results in the full and immediate restoration of the sinless baptismal state?
Is it wrong for God to punish us for sins we commit now? Even in the context of having it ultimately paid for at the cross?
Retributively, yes: medicinally, no. Retributively wrong, because double jeopardy would happen. Medicinally right, to remove the remnants of sinful habits.
It’s the difference between God relating to us as the eternal judge and as a loving Father. We have been saved from the penalty of sin, and are now being saved from its power, and one day saved from its presence.
Double jeopardy how?
Is there not possibly an intertwining of the two? I would be inclined to think they’re inseparable
One of the fundamental differences here that never gets described is Catholics split grace into different categories. Most importantly here: justification and sanctification.
Justification saves you, sanctification makes you holy. Purgation, in this life through penance and prayer) and in the next life (purgatory proper) help you to be sanctified, or become more holy.
Sinful attachments need to be removed, by God’s grace, for this to be possible.
I hope this is a helpful way of seeing how Catholics look at this.