As I stated.
otherwise indulgences would not have been granted for X number of days or years for various prayers and good works by the Catholic church.
The days of indulgences refer to the remission of so many days of the former canonical penance imposed by the Church under the stern older scheme of the Sacrament of Penance. A plenary indulgence then is the total remission of all the canonical penance still awaiting satisfaction.
The notion of a set time in purgatory comes from the fact the people would die without having completed the course of their canonical penance, but having made a good confession. The penance would then have to be performed in purgatory to complete the perfection of the sinner.
I would add parenthetically that it is fully possible to be in the Church and to hold the faith of the Church, and even to be saints, and yet hold certain views and opinions that are wrong. St. Augustine certainly falls into this category. We have our own saints who are great fathers, but who held certain views that were not accepted by the Church. The fact that the Orthodox Church believes that certain Latin teachings are simply wrong and not a part of the consensus patrum does not at all imply that we would believe that the pre-Schism western writers who seem to have held those views were not saints, let alone that they were outside the Church.
One must be careful with this line of reasoning. Sometimes, St. Augustine went out on a limb by himself. Other times, St. Augustine is in the long line of Latin Tradition from Tertullian, Sts. Cyprian and Cornielius, Sts. Jerome and Ambrose, Sts. Hilary and Leo the Great, Sts. Fulgentius, Bede, and Gregory the Great, which the saw codifcation by the Schoolmen and Tridentine theologians.
It would not be anything of concern if one father was in error on one issue. It would be quite inconceivable to a Catholic for the entire Latin theological tradition to be in error.
"It would be quite inconceivable to a Catholic for the entire Latin theological tradition to be in error."
And equally inconceivable that there will be any reunion until the East and the West believe the same thing, which quite clearly we don't.
Oh, I'm being quite careful. It is creating a bit of a straw man to leap from what I said to implying that disagreements with the course that Latin theology ended up taking means that that Orthodoxy condemns Fathers that are actually deeply venerated.
What those Orthodox who are familiar with the Western fathers would maintain is that perhaps their writings and spiritual heritage are better understood within the context of the Orthodox spiritual and theological tradition than they are within the subsequent Latin tradition.