What accounts for this insistence that we teach what we do not teach? The sufferings of the 'holy souls' in purgatory and of the penitents on earth are not payment for sin, strictly speaking. Sin has been paid for, as I have said repeatedly in this and other threads.
Consequently the idea of purgation as we present it is not about payment for sin. So I agree whole-heartedly with Hebrews 10:18 AND maintain that there is purgation.
Therefore that shot missed the target.
That is EXACTLY what I and many, many other Catholics have been taught. That is what Catholics on this thread have been saying.
If that's not what it's for, then just what IS it for? What does our suffering accomplish that Jesus didn't accomplish for us on the cross?
Isn't that the whole point of Jesus coming and dying? That He did for us what we could not do for ourselves as we were/are powerless to do it ourselves so that we didn't HAVE to do it ourselves because we couldn't?
Sin has been paid for, as I have said repeatedly in this and other threads.
YOU have.
Not all Catholics believe that or teach it. Most claim that there is some sin which we have to pay for ourselves and that's what purgatory is for, to take care of that which we neglected (for whatever reason) to repent of while here on earth.
That means that we are still bearing some of our sin. But since the soul that sins dies, and the wages of sin is death, if there was any sin that was not covered then death in hell is the only option; nobody would get to heaven. That sin that we are paying for in purgatory with our suffering cannot be paid because it's not suffering that pays for sin but death and the shedding of blood is the only thing that procures forgiveness. Suffering doesn't.
Not about payment for sin? Why do I sense we are in for some Catholic double speak again? Either Christ did it all or His work was incomplete and we need to complete it.
You seem to be a little stingy with some of the details of the teaching...Says here that your religion teaches and believes that Jesus died for all sins, PAST...Not future...That in itself explains the direction you guys always go in...
There's some wild stuff on this page... From EWTN
Does the blood of Christ not purify us totally when we receive Him as Lord and Savior? A sin is forgiven if, and only if, we are contrite; a sin I am not sorry for having committed is a sin that is not forgiven. Does Christ blood completely purify me? To the degree I am sorry for my sins.
But suppose we grant the Protestant notion that when I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior I am totally and perfectly purified. Such an admission, however, does not necessarily entail a perpetual purification; at the time of my initial encounter with Christ, I might be perfectly and completely purified, but what happens when later that day I commit a sin?
Or are we to say that a Christian cannot commit a sin? Surely not. Or are we to believe that the moment he does sin it is instantly washed away regardless of his non-contrition for having committed that sin? Surely not.
If Christians do commit sin, then he is not clean. His garments have become soiled. Christ tells us that only those with unsoiled garments can walk with Him (cf. Rv 3.4-5).
Christians are constantly in the need for purification; we never reach a point when we no longer need to be bathed in the most precious Blood of our Savior. We always need Jesus!
Those that maintain that the act of faith a person made X-number of years ago in the past is sufficient for forgiveness of subsequent sin, grossly misunderstands justification; also implicit in such a belief is a denial of sanctification. If justification did it all, for all times, then sanctification makes absolutely no sense.