mary

How do I know what is true? Or How do I know which church has it right?

I have been thinking a lot on this topic. This is at the foundation of everything for  me.  There are different forms of Christianity--so how does one determine what is true?--Which form of Christianity is true when each holds to the inspiration of the Bible but each have different interpretations. Each form claims to have the Spirit of God helping them to understand the Bible. Another guy asked this same question and some of his answers have been helpful --here: http://chnetwork.org/2011/05/fr-brian-w-harrison-logic-and-the-foundations-of-protestant-faith/ SO READ the link too because he addresses this in a different way than here.

Included in his discussion is where is truth found and how do we know?

Two things that help me as I reflect on this issue are in the Bible. I Tim 4:15 b  "..the church of the living God, the pillar and support (or ground) of the truth."  God's word states that the church is the pillar and support of the truth.

Another passage is Eph 4

 ⁴ There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;

 ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

 ⁷ But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

 ⁸ Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, And gave gifts unto men.

 ⁹ (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?

 ¹⁰ He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

 ¹¹ And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 ¹² for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:

 ¹³ till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 ¹⁴ that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;

 ¹⁵ but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ;

 ¹⁶ from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.

 ¹⁷ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind,

It clearly states in Scripture what He has given us so that we can know truth. He has given us the church and the gifts to the church--so we may have unity of faith and so we may not be tossed about by error. Thus the early church and the church Fathers were part of this--and so forth as time went on. We can't break ourselves from this church  with its gifts because then we won't know what books are to be in the Bible,   what doctrines or interpretations of the Bible are correct. 

from comment 20 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/

In a real sense, when I “chose” Catholicism, for the first time in my Christian life I wasn’t even taking scripture into consideration. Wow, that sounded bad. What I am saying is that for all the beauty and awesomeness of scripture, it is obviously circular to say I am going to go to scripture to get my paradigm about how to interpret… scripture. Even the simple fact of the origin of scripture can’t be found like that. So for me it was as obvious as my nose that I needed to put that book on the shelf (so to speak) while I looked for a larger paradigm… a paradigm that would enable me to pick up that book again and read it within that paradigm. Protestantism (in the main) does not offer such a paradigm that can fit even disjointedly with the facts of history of the early Church, therefore no tu quoque is possible. In all the major Protestant paradigms things always begin with interpreting scripture. This is why as a Calvinist I never bothered to ask where the Westminster Divines got their authority. Looking back this seems like a glaring omission, but when one is beginning the whole inquiry with their own interpretation as a starting point, then when one finds likeminded folks claiming authority, it is easy to forget that they may actually have no claim to authority in reality… in history.

There are, however, a few paradigms which begin within the larger context of history and authority. Once I set the book on the shelf and looked at the actual history of the early Church, just tracing who claimed authority, when, where, why, on what basis, it was not hard to trace the authority through 2000 years of history. Yes, I had to slow down and really look closely at the Great Schism, but for purposes of a Tu Quoque refutation, I may as well be Orthodox *or* Catholic. And of course keep in mind all the claimants to authority we find through history always back up their doctrines with scripture. Even arch-heretics like Arius. Which is why it is crucial to put the book on the shelf before you try getting a paradigm from it. If all you do is duel with your interpretation, you literally are doing nothing different than every heretic ever. Not a very safe place. Not judging between exegesis and interpretations, why was Arius wrong? If I knew nothing about scripture, could I still show that Athanasius was right?
Once I stopped shooting arrows and sloshing paint brushes around and realized that perhaps I should be looking for the target instead, and that no matter what that target looked like… (that is the key)… no matter what the target looked like to aim my arrow true and try to bulls-eye it… that was a paradigm shift.

see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-do-we-decide-on-christian-truth.html

Training altar servers

Great advice from Father Longenecker on training altar boys  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-i-tell-my-altar-servers

defense of an Adam and Eve

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/04/dr-dennis-bonnette-debunks-argument.html  This gives added links

also in answer to this question:

I had a theology teacher who told me that Adam and Eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends…is that what the Church teaches? http://www.catholicscomehome.org/scripture-and-tradition/

No. The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, “…the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen.

Paragraph #38, states: “This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis…do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense…” Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a “true sense.”

Paragraph #39: “Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things…”
And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, “The Church…teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve…” No mention of a myth here.

Paragraph #404: “By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Myths cannot commit personal sins.

Adam and Eve are not myths. Genesis does not contain myth or legend. That is Church teaching. If anyone says otherwise, ask him or her to produce sources from a magisterial document. They won’t be able to do so.

end of quote

so when the Catechism says in 390 that "The account of the fall uses figurative language" one has to be careful in what this means. An example of figurative language is when it says -they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden 

however Mark Shea differs a bit: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-senses-of-scripture
[this below is a quote from him

Periodically, folks ask about whether we are supposed to read the Bible literally.

The Church does require a literal interpretation of biblical texts.  But that does not mean what most Americans imagine it means.  It does not mean we have to believe, for instance, that the universe was made in six 24 hour days, or profess faith in talking snakes.  Rather, by the "literal sense", the Church means we must read the text looking for what the author intended to say, the *way* he intended to say it, and distinguish from that what is incidental to what he was saying.  That’s the literal interpretation.  And getting at it is trickier than we might suppose, since the inspired authors were not, in fact, 3000 years stupider than us, but were endowed with brains and a genetic complement identical to ours and an *extremely* subtle and sophisticated manner of communicating theological and spiritual truths and a complex symbol system that we often misunderstand.  That's why we need the Church.  Therefore, the Church also says we are not at all bound to read it *literalistically* as though it was always a newspaper account.  So, for instance, CCC 390 says:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents. 

Note that: Genesis describes a real primeval event (the fall) but it uses figurative, not newspaper, language to do it.  Other times, of course, Scripture does uses something like newspaper language ("David hid from Saul in a cave.") in order to tell the story.  Common sense and the interpretive tradition of the Church help us discern what from what.

Likewise, the Church does not commit us to reading the account of Noah literalistically.  But at the same time, the Church remains open to the findings of the sciences which help to inform our understanding of what may constitute the historical basis of the story.  And, of course, what Jesus, the apostles, and the Fathers thought most important about the Old Testament were the various spiritual senses of interpretation (while always maintaining that the literal sense was the basis of all the other senses of Scripture).  For a quick rundown on on the senses of Scripture, see CCC 115-119:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.

For much more detail on the senses of Scripture, see my book Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-senses-of-scripture#ixzz30KlRvXDC

see this http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

vatican--a city state?

Found this from Kavinay Kishor, Roman Catholic catechized as an adult. "A way to to understand this is that the papal state system is a tradition from feudal times. The Catholic Church has always asserted political sovereignty by it's claim to land and statehood itself. The Pope and The Holy See (Church Government) itself may have been physically located in Italy, but were respectively a head of state and sovereign power independent of Italy. This is because the Pope was not the subordinate of another feudal monarch. Yet, in a feudal system, the only way to assert sovereignty was by means of maintaining of your own distinct kingdom. The Pope and the Catholic Church were never part of the Italian nation-state, but rather always operated their own state and even police and army since the middle ages. In fact, the The Pope was considered the ruler of an area called the Papal States until 1870 when Italy declared war and seized Rome. It was only in 1929 when the Italian State and the Papacy came to an agreement that conferred Vatican City back to the Church. The Vatican is thus a state in keeping with The Holy See's consistent claim to sovereignty. It is also why Vatican City is administered by The Holy See and why the Pope is treated as a head of state during a papal visit to another country." Also found this: The Catholic Church desires the maintenance of this state so that no nation may claim the pope for its own and thus attempt to influence or control the Church via political means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
 gives a history of the papal states

The Sacrament of Penance

http://www.fisheaters.com/penance.html  This is helpful and gives some extended examination of conscience at the bottom  Here is a part

Duties to God and to Church:

 Do I love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength? Have I given God the honor and time that is His due? Do I pray? Do I express my gratitude to God? Does something or someone -- a material thing, a person, a behavior, an attitude -- come between me and God? Have I used God's Name as a curse word or cursed God? Have I broken promises, oaths, or vows to God? Have I failed to treat sacred things and places with respect? Have I received the Eucharist while not in a state of grace? Have I kept Sunday holy by attending Mass and refraining from servile work?  Have I lied to a priest during the Sacrament of Penance or intentionally failed to confess a sin I should have confessed? Have I defended God and His Church when it was necessary? Do I study my faith, according to my abilities, so I can defend the Church when necessary? Do I properly value the Church's disciplines and heritage? Do I pray for the Holy Father and the Church, including those in Purgatory? Have I experimented with magic, the occult, spiritism, willful psychic phenomena, ouija boards, etc.? Do I keep Sundays and Holy Days of obligation? Have I failed to go to Confession, at least once a year during Lent? Have I failed to do my Easter Duty (i.e., receive the Eucharist at least once during the Paschal Season)? Have I failed to follow the laws of fasting and abstinence? Have I failed to support the Church as my means allow? Have I obeyed the Church's marriage laws?  Do I belong to a secret society such as Freemasonry, Skull and Bones, etc.?

Duties to Family:

 Have I failed to perform my duties to my parents, spouse, or children -- as (mother/ father, daughter/son, wife/husband) and as a Christian whose duty it is to lead them to Christ and to pray for them and, if possible, with them?For husbands: Do I treat my wife with the respect and tenderness I would give to Our Lady? Do I treat her as less than my queen, bride, and friend? Do I strive to provide for her, protect her, and help her to feel cherished and needed without condescension or treating her as a child? Do I undermine her in her role as mother? Do I try to make her happy within the boundaries of God's laws? Do I use my headship as an excuse for laziness, cruelty, arrogance, or in any manner inconsistent with the way in which I would treat Our Lady or the manner in which Christ treats His Church?For wives: Do I treat my husband with less than the respect and tenderness I would give to Christ? Do I treat him as less than my king, groom, and friend? Do I strive to obey him, nurture him, and help him feel cherished and needed? Do I undermine him in his role as father? Do I try to make him happy within the boundaries of God's laws? Do I nag or provoke him? Is Christ the King of my household? Do I pray for my dead ancestors, family members, and friends, and for the souls of those in Purgatory who have no one to pray for them? Have I helped cause members of my family to sin? Do I try my best to empathize with the members of my family and to love them with a love grounded in Truth? Do the members of my family know they are loved? If not, is this my fault? Have I caused any member of my family to get unrighteously angry or to be unjustly hurt? Have I failed to apologize to and seek forgiveness from members of my family if there was need? Have I forgiven my parents, spouse or children for past faults? Do I give my family my time and undivided attention when possible? Do any of my habits -- spending habits, gambling, etc. -- deprive my family of support? Have I used contraception and failed to keep my marital acts open to life? Have I used N.F.P. (Natural Family Planning) for frivolous reasons? Am I too lenient with my children? Do I set standards and boundaries? Do I use fair, reasonable, and consistent discipline? Am I too harsh with my children? Do I squelch the joy out of my children's lives with needless rules, "Pharisaic" attitudes, a lack of mercy, and an authoritarian -- as opposed to an authoritative -- approach to discipline? Do I discipline them in a way that humiliates them?  Do my spouse and I sabotage each other with regard to disciplining our children? Do I "force" my spouse to play the role of "mean parent" while I play "nice parent"? Have I been a good example for my children and/or the children of others? Do I have high enough and age-appropriate expectations of my children? Do I over-praise or under-praise my children? Do I prize goodness and grace in my children above anything else I prize in them? Do I teach my children the fullness of the Faith, encourage them to pray to their Guardian Angels, to their patron Saints, and for the dead? Do I protect my children's innocence, inspire their imaginations, and do all I can to encourage healthy curiosity and the ability to marvel by teaching them about God, His Church, His creation, the lives of the Saints, etc., and by exposing them to good books, music, and art? Have I found a good balance between protecting my child's innocence and teaching him about the world, in an age-appropriate way, so that he is not ignorant and naive or made to feel stupid or ridiculous about himself when in the company of those who are "of the world"? Have I given him good weapons with which to fight the evils of the world while understanding and nourishing his social needs? Do I treat male children and female children with equal dignity, with respect for their God-given individual talents and vocations, but also with respect for Natural Law and their God-given differences as male and female? Do I allow my children appropriate expression of their emotions and help them to understand and become masters of their negative emotions? Do I help my children come to a humble, healthy, true sense of themselves as children of God, as individuals with unique vocations, and as possessing both virtues and faults? Do I instill in my children a sense of duty to God, to family, to others, and to themselves? Do I nurture the possibility of religious vocations in any of my children? Have I taught my children good manners and to be aware of the needs of the elderly, the infirm, the pregnant, the otherwise challenged? Are my spouse and I consistent in our discipline of our children?

Duties to Society:

 Do I love others as I love myself, with a love grounded in Truth? Do I evangelize with prudence and intelligence, and without being annoying and judgmental? Do I pray for others, including those in authority and for my enemies? Have I taken anything I had no right to take? Have I failed to return anything I may have stolen in the past or otherwise make restitution? Have I cheated anyone out of anything that is rightfully theirs? Have I been honest in business, including paying my employees a fair wage? Do I treat my employees or those I supervise with dignity, respect, and consideration? ~and/or~ Do I give my employer his due and perform my job satisfactorily? Do I treat service personnel (waitresses, waiters, clerks, busboys, maids, doormen, etc.) with dignity, respect, and consideration, and without condescension? Do I consider their time and feelings? Do I tip well, given my means, in cultures where tipping is considered the norm and, in essence, "wages"? Have I engaged in illicit usury? Have I given to the poor as my means allow? Do I betray others' secrets that I had no right to betray? Have I spoken anything untrue about another (calumny or slander) or, for no good reason, said things that were true butmaliciously or needlessly or unjustly spoken and that were damaging to another's reputation (detraction)? Do I engage in malicious gossip? Do I make promises I do not intend to keep? Have I cheated on tests or homework at school or otherwise plagiarized the work of others? Am I greedy and selfish? Am I envious of what others have? Am I too materialistic?  Have I cursed another (i.e., called down physical or moral evil on a rational creature, not for the sake of a good, such as justice or punishment, but out of malice or for personal gain)? If possible, if candidates are available, do I vote responsibly, with the Kingship of Christ, the dignity of human life, and the principle of subsidiarity in mind? Given my station in life, my gifts, and vocation, do I care enough for the sick, hungry, thirsty, poor, and imprisoned? Do I show good stewardship by treating the earth as God's creation?  Do I treat animals with care and appreciation and refrain from needless cruelty toward them?  Do I show reasonable patriotism for my country (that is "country," not necessarily "government," and doesn't mean "blind patriotism")? Do I use my God-given talents in a wholesome way and for the benefit of others? Am I mindful of how my behavior or passivity influences others and conditions around me? Do I love the sinner while remaining truthful about sin? Am I forgiving to the contrite? Have I nurtured unrighteous anger in my heart? Am I vengeful? Am I a good, reliable friend to others? Do I exhibit any racist behaviors or hold any racist thoughts (i.e., thoughts and behaviors rooted in the idea that God's love and our love for others is or should be conditioned by ideas of race or genetics)? Have I murdered anyone, including having an abortion, helping someone have an abortion, or failing to do my best to encourage someone not to have an abortion (abortion includes in vitro fertlization)? Have I participated in euthanasia? Have I encouraged embryonic stem cell research? Have I encouraged unjust war? Have I intentionally and unjustly physically harmed someone? Have I participated in the sins of others by counseling them to sin, by commandmanding them to sin, by consenting to their sin, by provoking them to sin, by praising or flattering them in their sins, by concealing their sins that others have a right to know about, by partaking in their sins, or by silence even when the cause of charity demands I speak out?  Have I used alcohol or any other drug recreationally to to the point where my judgment and will were affected? Have I been chaste according to my station in life (been faithful to my spouse, honored promises or vows as a religious or priest, not engaged in fornication if unmarried, etc.)? Have I willfully looked at pornography for no legitimate reason (e.g. law-enforcement) or supported it financially? Do I dress and behave immodestly or without concern for how my appearance and behavior may lead others to the sin of lust? Have I engaged in solitary sexual sins? Have I engaged in homosexual/lesbian acts? Have I been kind and charitable to those who are struggling to overcome homosexual/lesbian temptations?
 Have I intentionally lusted after someone? (Note: random thoughts that come to the mind are not sinful. My priest described them once in a sermon as mere flies that should be shooed away. What is sinful is deliberately cultivating these thoughts, deliberately giving them your salacious attention, etc. Know that many great Saints had thoughts like these -- and even worse: it is quite common as one proceeds in holiness for extremely blasphemous thoughts and thoughts ofdespair to flash in the mind. Shoo them away, and know that it is the Evil One trying to make you feel hopeless. It is good at times like these to call on the Name of Jesus and fall back on the short aspirations to replace those thoughts with holy ones.)

Duties to Yourself:

 Do I trust in God's mercy and love for me as a beloved child, or do I wallow in guilt for sins I've been absolved of? Am I too scrupulous and hard on myself, treating myself much more harshly than I would others I love?  Am I too easy on myself? Am I honest with myself about my gifts and limitations? Do I overestimate or underestimate my importance? Do I treat myself as an icon of God, made in His image? Do I trust that God is in control or do I worry needlessly? Am I able to appreciate the fruits of His Goodness? Do I stand up for myself and my wholesome needs?

below are quotes from here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/

 Recall that justice is the virtue of giving to each his due. Penance (or repentance) is a kind of giving to God what is His rightful due. Penance is the disposition of the will or an act of the will that aims at the destruction of one’s past sins which one recognizes to be offenses against God. Penance thus is aimed at giving God what is His rightful due, by grieving (with the will, not necessarily the emotions) for those acts that have offended God, and by seeking to make amends for them, through some kind of compensation.⁴

Destruction of our offenses against God is not effected merely by ceasing to sin; some kind of compensation is necessary, to make amends for one’s sins against God. That is because sin leaves wounds, marks and debts in our relation to God. For example, if a man has been abusing his wife, the emotional wounds are not removed simply by his ceasing to abuse her, even if she forgives him. He must not only be truly sorry for what he has done, he must do whatever is in his power to make amends, something that may take years. Sin, as St. Augustine defined it, is a “word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law.”⁵ But the eternal law is not a creature; it is God Himself. For this reason sin always involves a component that is against God Himself. And thus sin always involves our taking some pleasure in a word, deed or desire that deprives God of the charity, honor and obedience that He is justly due. So sin always contracts a debt of justice. By sinning we have taken something from God, by not giving to Him what is rightly due to Him. For this reason, penance involves two things: contrition, that is, grieving for one’s sins, and satisfaction, i.e. depriving oneself of temporal pleasures, or subjecting oneself to hardship in some way, to make amends to God for the pleasure that one took at God’s expense. Of course no one who has turned away from God can make sufficient satisfaction for that offense. St. Thomas says, “wherefore in such cases, he that falls short of the other must do whatever he can. Yet this will not be sufficient simply, but only according to the acceptance of the higher one”.⁶ In other words, just because we cannot fully make amends for our offenses against God, nevertheless, we must still do what we can to make amends, not because we think our penance is objectively sufficient to rectify our offenses, but in the hope that in His mercy God will find acceptable what penance we offer to Him out of sorrow for having offended Him whom we should love above all things.''

....[concerning mortal sin and repentance].................
  The grace of God, however, causes the goodness in the man who is graced by God. Thus for any man who is graced by God, that man has goodness, and that goodness was caused by God’s grace.⁸ Therefore, while a man may pardon another man’s offense without a change in the offender’s will, it is impossible for God to pardon a man for an offense, without that man’s will being changed. Since the offense of mortal sin is due to man’s will being turned away from God and inordinately turned to some mutable good, therefore for the pardon of mortal sin, it is necessary that man’s will be turned toward God and away from the inordinate love of the mutable good, with the intention of making amends for the wrongs he did to God. Since this turning toward God and away from the inordinate love of created goods, belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue, it follows that it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without his having penance as a virtue.

.................
 The reason that grace and mortal sin cannot be co-present within the soul is that to be in mortal sin is to at enmity with God, not in friendship with God. But to have sanctifying grace is to be in friendship with God. And since person cannot both be in friendship with God and be at enmity with God, therefore grace and mortal sin cannot be co-present in the soul.

...........
 Notice that mortal sin always has a two-fold component. It necessary involves a turning away from God in some respect, and an inordinate (i.e. disordered) turning to some finite created good. This two-fold aspect of sin means that justice is violated in two ways, in each mortal sin. In turning away from God, the sinner has not given to the eternal God His due, for which action the just punishment is the eternal loss of God, because the nature of the sin determines the punishment of the sin. But the sinner has also turned inordinately to some finite mutable good, for which action the just punishment is the “pain of sense,” which is a finite punishment.

.........
 First he reminds us, as we saw above, that in every mortal sin there are two turnings: a turning away from God who is the immutable Good, and an inordinate turning to some mutable good. This two-fold turning of mortal sin induces two debts of punishment, because these two turnings intrinsic to every mortal sin are not equal in their degree of injustice. The just punishment for turning away from the eternal God is eternal separation from God; this separation is called ‘hell.’¹²But the sin of turning inordinately to some mutable, finite good also incurs a debt of punishment, “because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment.”¹³ Hence there must be temporal punishment, “since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something against his will, for thus will equality be restored.”¹⁴ Justice can be violated in the short-term, as when someone commits an unjust act. But ultimately justice cannot be violated, because all violations of justice must eventually be brought back to the order of justice, and this can only be done by just punishment.
The debt of punishment for turning inordinately to some mutable, finite good is not eternal punishment, but temporal punishment, because a finite sin does not justly deserve an eternal punishment. So when a man turns inordinately to a finite good without turning away from God, as happens in venial sin, he does not incur a debt of eternal punishment but he does incur a debt of temporal punishment.¹⁵ Thus, when the guilt of sin is pardoned through the grace that comes to us through the sacrament of penance, “the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being united to God by grace.”¹⁶ But, the debt of temporal punishment may yet remain.

.........Here St. Thomas explains that mortal sin produces in the soul a disposition or even a habit, of inordinate love for a mutable good. When the guilt of mortal sin and the eternal debt that it incurs, are removed from the soul by the grace that comes through the sacrament of penance, these inordinate dispositions remain in the soul. These remaining inordinate dispositions are called “remnants of sin.” In a sense, we bear in our bodies the debt of temporal punishment, the sign within us that justice has not been restored. But since our eternal debt has already been paid through the grace Christ merited by His Passion and death, which we receive through the sacrament of penance, therefore the remaining debt is the debt of temporal punishment. This is why, in response to the objection, the pardon of the guilt of mortal sin through the sacrament of penance does not in itself remove the debt of temporal punishment.

..........
 Operating grace is the actual grace whereby God works in us without us. Co-operating grace is the actual grace whereby God works in us with us, by strengthening our will and granting us the capability of performing some act. According to St. Thomas, the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace. We cannot merit either the forgiveness of sin or the removal of the debt of eternal punishment. But, says, St. Thomas, the remission of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace. Then, just as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so the remission of guilt and of eternal punishment in the sacrament of penance precedes the completion of our payment of the debt of temporal punishment. This is why when we walk out of the confessional after receiving absolution from our sins, all our sins are forgiven and our debt of eternal punishment is paid, but we must do some penance, as assigned to us by the priest. In doing so we are making satisfaction for the purpose of paying our debt of temporal punishment, which payment is, at the same time, a growth in sanctification, by removing from us the dispositions of inordinate love for created goods.

..................

[CCC1472]  [I]t is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. ²¹

......
 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.⁶² Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."⁶³The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.⁶⁴

Once we understand the distinction between the debt of eternal punishment and the debt of temporal punishment, and the basis for that distinction, then we can begin to understand certain other Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and indulgences. Purgatory is that place in which those who died in a state of grace pay any remaining debt of temporal punishment, in order that with a pure heart they may enter into the joy of seeing God in the Beatific Vision, for only those with a pure heart will see God.²³ An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment for sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, and thus whose debt of eternal punishment has already been paid. These doctrines only make sense if we first apprehend the two-fold turning intrinsic to every mortal sin, by its very nature. 

 The primary Protestant objection to the notion of penance is that it is incompatible with the finished work of Christ. According to this objection, since on the cross Christ already paid for all our sins, therefore the notion that we must still make satisfaction for our sins is a denial or belittlement of the sufficiency and completion of Christ’s sacrifice. This objection typically presupposes that there is no distinction between eternal and temporal punishment, and in addition presupposes that our satisfactions would in some way diminish the satisfaction made by Christ, rather than be a participation in and acceptable through His satisfaction. Another objection is that the distinction between eternal and temporal punishment is not found in Scripture. But the Council of Trent gives a number of examples from Scripture that presuppose or imply the distinction.²⁴ Another objection is that doing penance would give us ground for boasting. The Council of Trent also addresses that objection, teaching:

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father. … But let [priests] bear in mind that the satisfaction they impose [in the sacrament of Penance] be not only for the protection of a new life and a remedy against infirmity, but also for the atonement and punishment of past sins; for the early Fathers also believed and taught that the keys of the priests were bestowed not to loose only but also to bind. It was not their understanding, moreover, that the sacrament of penance is a tribunal of wrath or of punishments, as no Catholic ever understood that through our satisfactions the efficacy of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any way diminished.²⁵

In this way temporal punishment, penance, and purgatory are all compatible with an affirmation of the forgiveness of all our past sins, and with the perfection and completion of Christ’s Passion. Temporal punishment is compatible with the forgiveness of all our past sins, because of the two-fold injustice in every mortal sin. Temporal punishment is compatible with the perfection and completion of Christ’s Passion because of the distinction between operating grace and co-operating grace. By way of these distinctions, the saint to whom Christ had just spoken days earlier, saying, “Thou hast written well of me, Thomas,” teaches us here why it is wrong to think either that we can make full satisfaction for our sins or that we do not need to make any satisfaction for our sins.

end of quotes

quote from St. Augustine:

“You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism [I believe in the forgiveness of sins]. . . When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. . . For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. . . Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance.”

from the catechism http://www.catholiccrossreference.com/catechism/#!/search/1439-1442

VI. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION ⇡

1850
(all)

1440

Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.³⁸

38.

Cf. LG 11.

Only God forgives sin ⇡

270
431
589
(all)

1441

Only God forgives sins.³⁹ Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."⁴⁰ Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.⁴¹

39.

Cf. Mk 2:7.

40.

Mk 2:5,10; Lk 7:48.

41.

Cf. Jn 20:21-23.

983
(all)

1442

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation."⁴²The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."⁴³

42.

2 Cor 5:18.

43.

2 Cor 5:20.

see also  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/confession

1484

"Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession."⁹⁵ There are profound reasons for this. Christ is at work in each of the sacraments. He personally addresses every sinner: "My son, your sins are forgiven."⁹⁶ He is the physician tending each one of the sick who need him to cure them.⁹⁷ He raises them up and reintegrates them into fraternal communion. Personal confession is thus the form most expressive of reconciliation with God and with the Church.

95.

OP 31.

96.

Mk 2:5.

97.

Cf. Mk 2:17.

see also: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins

see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2012/11/atonementforgivenesmasssalvationtempora.html