Well, of course we don't think there is an opposition. WE agree that He alone paid for all Sin. We would tend to make more of the problem of sins committed after one has been reborn. WE do NOT think that the sins need to be paid for in the sense that the "debt" they incur needs to be satisfied. But the "stains" and "chains" of sin &8212; that is the shame and the (1) strengthening of the tendency to desire and even to will evil and the (2) weakening of the ability to desire and will good &8212; are still in us. Even after we are saved I think we can understand Paul as saying that the old man still struggles, still is not quite put to death.
We ourselves are ambivalent, double-minded. We believe in God and still long for a winning Mega-Stupendo Lottery ticket.
I like to think that since sin damages us personally, we need healing. Because we are reckoned as righteous, God graciously works to heal us. That healing process, whenever it happens, is purgation.
Question. I am trying to discuss this without offending anyone, but seeing that this is an ecumenical thread would it be better if I stopped and said no more in this thread?
So far I think you're doing fine. It might have been a TAD more diplomatic to say, "I think this quote is in opposition to Jesus,.." or "We teach that this quote...." "... because it looks like Purgatory is paying for that for Jesus alone pays ..." But I saw no intention to give offense and certainly took none.
** like to think that since sin damages us personally, we need healing. Because we are reckoned as righteous, God graciously works to heal us. That healing process, whenever it happens, is purgation.**
And we all know that only “perfect” souls may enter the Kingdom of Heaven!