|
The dogma of purgatory, founded in Scripture and
tradition, can be deduced with certitude from
revealed truths wherein it is implicitly contained.
We must not confound these arguments with the reasons
of
appropriateness, which we have just spoken of and
which are open even to non-believers. We are now to
speak of reasons which arise from revealed
principles.
St. Thomas [378] expounds these theological reasons
in his commentary on the Sentences. [379]
The first question is posed as follows: Is there a
purgatory after death? St. Thomas gives two arguments
of authority: the classic text from the Second Book
of Machabees, [380] and a text of St. Gregory of
Nyssa. Then he expounds the theological reason for
the existence of purgatory.
According to divine justice he who dies a contrite
death, but has not undergone the temporal punishment
due to his sins, must endure this punishment in the
other life. But at the moment of death, even when
contrition has forgiven mortal sins and destroyed
eternal punishment, it often happens that the
temporary punishment due to these sins remains to be
endured. It happens also that there remain in the
soul venial sins. Divine justice therefore must
insist on a temporal punishment in the other life.
St. Thomas adds: "Those who deny purgatory speak
therefore against divine justice and fall into
heresy, as St. Gregory of Nyssa has said."
This theological reason, founded on the necessity of
satisfaction, is demonstrative. It destroys the
foundation of the Protestant negation. [381] It is
thus formulated by the Council of Trent: [382] "It is
absolutely false and contrary to the word of God to
maintain that sin is never forgiven by God unless
there be remitted at the same time all the punishment
due to sin." [383] "This position [384] is true only
of those sins forgiven by baptism. But it is not true
of sins committed, with still greater ingratitude,
after baptism, even when these sins were forgiven by
contrition and the sacrament of penance." That
baptism brings with it remission of all punishment
due to sin is the reason why, in ancient times, some
people put off their baptism as long as possible.
This theological reason is founded on what Scripture
says concerning penance. [385] Already in the Old
Testament we see that, even after the remission of
sins, there often remains a temporal punishment to be
endured. The Book of Wisdom says that God "brought
Adam out of his sin." [386] Nevertheless he had to
continue cultivating the soil in the sweat of his
brow. [387] Moses, [388] in punishment of a fault
already pardoned, could not enter the promised land.
David [389] repented of his adultery and received
pardon for it, yet he was punished by the death of
his son. Jesus and His apostles preached the
necessity of penance and of good works to satisfy for
sins already forgiven. St. Paul [390] speaks of
labors, of watchings, of fasting, which the Church
has always considered as worthy fruits of penance,
according to the word of the Precursor. [391] We
often read in Scripture [392] that almsgiving
delivers from the pain and suffering due to sin.
These good works are satisfactory and at the same
time meritorious. They suppose therefore the state of
grace, that is, the remission of sin. [393] In the
natural order it is not sufficient that one who has,
for instance, kidnapped the daughter of a king simply
restores her to her father. To repair the injury he
must undergo a proportionate punishment.
It is not sufficient to cease sinning, not even to
repent. The order of justice, if violated, must be
re-established by voluntary acceptance of a
compensating punishment. [394] The created will which
has arisen against the divine order is bound, even
after repentance, to undergo punishment. Because it
has turned away from God, it is deprived of His
possession for a time. Because it has preferred to
Him a created good, it has to undergo a punishment
called pain of sense.
But, says the Protestant objection, Christ the
Redeemer has already satisfied superabundantly for
all our sins. Tradition has always replied: The
satisfactory merits of Christ are certainly
sufficient to redeem all men, and yet they must be
applied to each individual in order to be
efficacious. [395] They are applied to us in baptism,
and then, after our fall, by the sacrament of
penance, of which satisfaction is a part. Just as the
first cause does not render useless second causes but
gives to them the dignity of causality, so the merits
of Christ do not render our merits useless, but
arouse our own wills to make us work with Him,
through Him, and in Him for the salvation of souls,
and in particular for our own soul. Thus St. Paul
says: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you and
fill up those things that are wanting of the
sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for His body, which
is the church." [396]
To deny the necessity of satisfaction in this world
and of satispassion in purgatory amounts to denying
the value of a life of reparation. Such denial
involves the Lutheran negation of the necessity of
good works, as if faith without works could suffice
for justification and salvation.
At the end of a conference which I gave in Geneva, a
Protestant, intelligent and well-instructed, came to
see me. I said to him: "How could Luther come to the
conclusion that faith alone and the merits of Christ
suffice for salvation: that it is not necessary to
observe the precepts, not even the precepts of the
love of God and neighbor? " He answered me: "It is
very simple." "How very simple?" "Yes," he said, "it
is diabolical." "I would not dare to say that to
you," I answered, "but how is it that you are a
Lutheran?" "My family," he answered, "has been
Lutheran for generations, but in the near future I
shall enter the Catholic Church."
Father Monsabre wrote the following words : "Its
principles regarding justification led Protestantism
to deny the dogma of purgatory. Man, saved by faith
alone, by the merits of Christ, without relation to
his own deeds, need fear nothing from divine justice.
Divine justice must acknowledge his audacious and
imperturbable conscience in the redemptive virtue of
Him whose merits he exploits, even though he himself
may have violated all the commandments. The negation
which follows from these principles, invented to
shield the wicked, is as odious as it is absurd. It
is unintelligent and barbarous, for nothing is more
conformable to reason than the doctrine of the Church
on purgatory, and nothing is more consoling for the
heart. Protestantism, at the last hour, faces the
terrible perspective: everything or nothing. How
count on heaven when a man looks back on a life of
sin, sees
that he is offering to God only a late repentance,
without reparation for so many offenses? Hence there
remains only the perspective of malediction." [397]
The chief reason for the existence of purgatory is
the one we have now expounded, namely, the necessity
of satisfaction for sins, mortal or venial, already
forgiven. Purgatory is a place of satispassion, which
applies what was lacking on earth in the line of
satisfaction.
But there are two other theological reasons for the
necessity of purgatory. First, the just soul,
separating from the body, often has venial sins.
Secondly, sins already remitted have consequences
which are called the remains of sin. Since nothing
soiled can enter heaven, the soul must be purified
before it can see God face to face.
That venial sins do remain is not doubtful. St.
Thomas says: "A man lies in sleep, in the state of
grace indeed, but with venial sin, which will not be
remitted without contrition.
Many souls in the state of grace retain numerous
venial sins at the moment of death." [398]
On the "remains of sin" St. Thomas [399] speaks as
follows: "Mortal guilt is forgiven when grace turns
the soul to God, the soul which had been turned away
from Him. But there may remain an inclination toward
created good. This inclination, this disposition
caused by preceding acts, is called the remains of
sin. These dispositions grow weaker in a soul that
lives in the state of grace. They do not have the
upper hand. But they do solicit the soul to fall back
into sin.
Take a man who has sinned by drunkenness, and who has
confessed at Easter with sufficient attrition. He has
received absolution, sanctifying grace, and the
infused virtue of temperance. But, not having as yet
the acquired virtue of temperance, he retains the
inclination to sin again. Or take the case of
antipathy. If we confess with sufficient attrition,
the sin is remitted, but we retain its consequences
in the form of an inclination to sin again in the
same way. Purgatory must erase these consequences if
they are found in the soul at death.
But does not extreme unction remove these
consequences? We answer: first, some die without this
sacrament; secondly, some do not receive it with full
dispositions. Extreme unction, [400] fortifying the
soul for the last struggle, hinders disordered
habitudes from harming us at the supreme moment. But
these habitudes still remain, like rust. And nothing
soiled can enter into glory.
Such are the theological reasons for the necessity
and the existence of purgatory. First, sins already
forgiven often demand a temporal suffering. Secondly,
venial sins may still remain. Thirdly, defective
dispositions, although their corporeal element
disappears, remain as inordinate dispositions of the
will. Of these three reasons, the chief is the first.
It is, we think, demonstrative, because of the
revealed principles on which it rests. [401]
|
|
|
|
| 378. |
Sentences, Bk. IV, dist. 21, q.1,
a.1; subquestion |
| 379. |
In certain edition of the Summa this Appendix is
found in the Supplement after question 72, where it
comprises only two articles. But in the better
editions, like the Leonine (Rome, 1906), the Appendix
is put at the end of the Supplement and contains
eight
articles. In this latter case it contains all that is
said on the subject in the Commentary on the
Sentences.
For the sake of simplicity we shall cite the
Supplement
under the name of "Appendix Complete" or
"Supplement." |
| 380. |
II Mach. 12:45. |
| 381. |
Dict. theol. cath., "Purgatoire,"
col. 1179 ff., 1285. This theological reasoning has been
preserved by Suarez in his treatise De purgatorio, XXII, 879.
It has been too little considered by recent theologians. |
| 382. |
Denz., no. 904. |
| 383. |
Ibid., canons 12 and 15, nos. 922,
925. |
| 384. |
Ibid., no. 904. |
| 385. |
Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Bk. I, chap. 24, 11, Necessity of Satisfaction. |
| 386. |
Wisd. 10:1. |
| 387. |
Gen. 3:17. |
| 388. |
Num. 20:11; Deut. 34:4. |
| 389. |
II Kings 12:14. |
| 390. |
II Cor. 6:5. |
| 391. |
Matt. 3:8; cf. Council of Trent, Denz., nos. 806,
807. |
| 392. |
Tob. 4:11; 12:9; Ecclus. 3:33; Dan. 4:24; Luke
11:41. |
| 393. |
Supplementum, q. 14, a. 2. |
| 394. |
Ia IIae, q. 87, a.6. Also Appendix of the
Supplement, a.7. |
| 395. |
Bellarmine, De purgatorio, chap. 14. |
| 396. |
Col. 1:24. |
| 397. |
Conferences in Notre Dame, 1889, 97th conference,
pp. 30, 35. |
| 398. |
Appendix of the Supplement, a.6; also De malo, q.
7, a. 11. |
| 399. |
De malo. loc. cit. ad. 4. |
| 400. |
Supplementum, q. 30, a. 1 ad 2. |
| 401. |
Imitation of Christ, Bk. I, chap. 24. |
|