Not a "Pious Belief"

The key words are "Romish" and "punitive." I am referring, of course, to the subject of Purgatory. If by that word someone means "Paradise" or "Abraham's Bosom" as the Lord used those designations in the Gospel According to St. Luke, then I have no objection to make. The Scriptures do give us reason to believe that the children of God will have an opportunity (to put it positively), if I may say it metaphorically, to take a bath and put on clean clothes before entering the King's throne room. Of course, it is reasonable to interpret those passages as having to do with the General Resurrection on the Last Day, in some ways a better fit than squeezing their meaning into an intermediate state. That purification is something that seems to be possible only once we have shed this mortal nature to put on immortality, either before putting it on or in the process of doing so.

The problem with the word "Purgatory" however, is the association it generally carries with a Medieval and strictly western (i.e. not Universal) theory that became, in time, a Roman doctrine. The idea that God, to be just, must assign us "temporal punishment" for sins, even though they are forgiven in some larger sense, makes a complete mockery of the cross. It is not a "Pious Belief."

A "Pious Belief" is something that cannot be taught as doctrine (even though some insist on doing so without any right to impose their views), but that sincere believers might hold to nonetheless. Generally these are identical to the Marian "dogmas" as they are so designated by the Church of Rome, meaning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and her Assumption into Heaven. No one has any authority whatsoever to teach these Pious Beliefs as the "teaching of the Church." Nonetheless, many of our own people hold these beliefs without seeking to impose them on others who either find them questionable or who, perhaps, reject them. They are not worth fighting over, especially inasmuch as no one can prove the issues one way or the other, and neither is anyone saved or lost by believing or not believing them. The veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is really all about the Incarnation of the Word, and for this reason we may rightly speak of both, or either, of those beliefs about Mary as truly pious.

Anglicans, however, have no reason to call the western Medieval "development of doctrine" about a punitive Purgatory a "pious belief." How can we call it that? The Anglican position is stated flatly and bluntly, that it is "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God (Article XXII)." The Article says it correctly, historically and Scripturally. No Father of the Church ever heard of this lately "developed" "doctrine," inasmuch as the whole idea did not exist in the first millennium of the Church. No Ecumenical Council considered it. It is not a doctrine believed at all in the Eastern Orthodox Church (which condemns it as heresy). It cannot be proved by Scripture.

So "the Romish doctrine of [a punitive] Purgatory" has no support from Scripture, no support in Antiquity, and no Universal Consensus.

Again, the version of Purgatory for which Anglicanism provides no toleration is not the idea of purification (which some do call "Purgatory"), but specifically "the Romish doctrine," that is, the idea that justice requires a punitive process. The term "temporal punishment" means that Purgatory exists strictly to satisfy the requirements of the Law, not to perfect or even help the soul. The desire of the soul for purification, that bath and clean clothes, becomes irrelevant in this distorted, legalistic debtor's prison in which we supposedly pay to God the debt we owe. Indeed, if it were for the good of the soul, why the Treasury, and the indulgences, and so forth, that shorten the time? The answer is, they have thrown away the whole notion of purification for the good of the soul. They have turned God into a legalistic magistrate, someone who simply wants His pound of flesh rather than the Father who has given His only begotten Son to save us.

The dangers and problems of this error are manifold.

1. It trivializes sin.

That is right; it trivializes sin rather than blowing it out of proportion. 

Before getting deeply into this problem, we should first consider a problem of teaching. The Bible classifies "sin unto death" as "willful" (cp. I John 5:16,17 with Hebrews 10:26), by which we may divide sins into venial and mortal. That designation is not the problem, if we bear in mind that genuine mortal sin (i.e. "sin unto death") is willful sin, carried on intentionally with knowledge that it is sinful, and that genuine venial sin is not willful. 

But, the Roman system lists which acts are venial and which are mortal, creating a legalistic approach that has nothing to do with the human heart, the intention of the will and the whole problem of malice. Sins can be committed in complete ignorance (II Chron. 30:18-20), including the sins on Rome's "mortal" list. Sins can be committed with malice, deliberate intention of the will to sin, including sins on Rome's "venial" list. Of course they have theologians able to point out the dangers of treating the lists in too simplistic a fashion; if so, we may hope their message gets through.

.
The idea of a punitive Purgatory, however, makes sin a thing that can be paid for in part with temporal punishments by the sinners themselves. It removes from the whole equation that the first problem with sin is that all sin is committed ultimately against the Infinite and Eternal God. No temporal punishment by the guilty party can ever do justice to God's own holiness. The simple fact is, you are reconciled to God or not. There is nothing in between.

2. It has delayed repentance.

The pastoral problem I have been forced to deal with is a consequence of believing the Medieval doctrine. I have had to disabuse individuals of the notion that they can repent at leisure after death. Perhaps the bus ride in The Great Divorce is possible; but, we must all assume that it is highly dangerous to delay repentance with a hope for which no revelation can give support. The only way to live, for a Christian, is in a state of repentance and faith right now, today, with the knowledge that no one is guaranteed another breath. You could die before finishing this post. You need to be ready to go at any moment, because, frankly, you might just die in the next minute. If belief that it can all be worked out, sweated off, and paid for in a punitive Purgatory delays one from turning to God with hearty repentance and true faith, then the doctrine becomes poison. This I have seen.

Now, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, officially they teach that the soul must be prepared for death in every way, and that Purgatory is only for those who die in a state of grace. But, the misunderstanding I have dealt with is a genuine cause for concern, and is easily avoided by not teaching the "Romish doctrine" at all.

3. It denies the Gospel

Whereas purification is an idea we can all be glad for (especially if we see it also as grace), the idea that Christ paid for our sins only in part, and that justice requires a further "temporal punishment" denies the sufficiency of Christ as the Propitiation for our sins. And, if it denies the sufficiency of His sacrifice and death, it denies Him as God in the flesh. If saints, by their alleged merits (another serious problem) can make up for some insufficiency in Christ's sacrifice with further partial payment, than the concept brings Christ down to the level of His creatures who have needed and received His grace. It almost makes one expect to hear somebody listing the Lord among His saints as a mere equal. 

As I said in the post just below: 

"That [the publican] goes home justified is no small matter. The whole theological meaning of justification is of major importance in the New Testament, and the theme receives its greatest development by St. Paul. It is obvious that Paul builds his meaning on the same understanding of justification that is very clear in Christ's parable [of the publican and the Pharisee]...On the cross, as He died, Jesus uttered the word τελέω (teleō), which takes three English words to say: 'It is finished (John 19:30).' In those days, when Greek was the international tongue, the word τελέω was written on a final receipt of payment; so we may conclude that the usage of the word was meant to convey not only the completion or perfection of a thing, but full payment. Christ has paid in full for it all, for 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:2).'"

No one else could pay for our sins (Psalm 49:7), because everyone else, even the saints, are all sinners themselves. The saints have received grace, including the grace to acquire virtues; Christ alone of all mankind has merits of His own. Furthermore, because of Who it is that died for us, no further payment is needed. And, if it is paid in full and we are justified, how could God be just in requiring yet more, as if we could imagine the Father finding fault with the sacrifice and death of His only begotten Son? He would be unjust; but as it is, God is "just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:26)."

To be cleansed and able to walk into the throne room of such a loving Father is a joy to consider. So, I am glad for that bath and clean clothes to which we may look forward. It is nothing less than our gratitude and awe move us to desire.