Well...no

But how are you supposed to describe it otherwise?

I don't know enough about time and divine places as to study how one applies to the other

The divine places exist outside of time.

The whole concept of indulgences is to try and put a comprehensible spin on their nature.

You sure that everything not in this life is outside time?

If divine places exist outside of time then it is metaphysically inconsistent to have temporal punishment in a supra-temporal plane.

We know that God is outside time, and that is consistent with his knowledge of everything

Does praying Salve Regina in front of a Marian shrine actually remove 500 tangible days of purgatory?

Probably not.

But try wracking your mind around the concept otherwise, m8

I wouldn't say that purgatory has to be outside time. But of course, I don't even really know what being outside time would imply beyond the fact of not being limited to knowing the present

Now the teaching is that purgatory removes the temporal punishment

Is "temporal punishment" the official term for the dogma?

or whatever the latin equivalent is

It is mentioned in the catechism, but I don't know what are the original documents that describe it. Is is also said that "This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin

You can't interpret scriptures on your own @Mozalbete ⳩ saying that they imply Purgatory. Show me the Church Fathers saying that or your interpretation is false.

The Church fathers constantly refer to praying for the dead and purification.

Tertulian says " Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep".

Cyprian or Carthage says "For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.".

Gregory of Nyssa says: ""If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire"

I think it is clear that Purgatory isn't just some silly modern invention.

And by the way, the Church fathers can interpret Scripture as much as I can, which is why some fathers interpreted Scripture and were wrong. My interpretations, of course, are always inside what is left for interpretation. Something isn't false because the Fathers didnt mention. What kind of logic is that? The fathers mentioning something means that something was already a thing back then, in a more or less explicit way.

Orthodox? More like gay.

The peak of apologetics

Charlemagne should be canonized again tbh.

@󠀂 󠀂 source?

So praying for the dead = Purgatory now.

You know that Orthodox pray for the dead, right ? Does the fact of praying for deads implie a purgatory ?

praying for the dead implies there is a purpose for prayng for the dead

_Who also, on this all-perfect and saving feast, art graciously pleased to accept propitiatory prayers for those who are imprisoned in hell [ literally in Greek”Hade”], granting us a great hope of improvement for those who are imprisoned from the defilements which have imprisoned them, and that Thou wilt send down Thy consolation”_

St. Basile of Cesarea, Ευχολογιον το Μεγα

Isn't the purpose of Basile enough clear, is he speaking of the Purgatory, here ?

_For thus does St. Theodore the Studite, the confessor and witness of the truth himself, say, at the very beginning of his canon for the departed: __“Let us all entreat Christ, performing a memorial today for those dead from the ages, that He might deliver from eternal fire those departed in faith and in hope of eternal life”__ (Lenten Triodion, Meat-Fare Saturday, Canon, Canticle 1). And then, in another troparion, in Canticle 5 of the Canon, he says: __“Deliver, O our Saviour, all who have died in faith from the ever-scorching fire, and unillumined darkness, the gnashing of teeth, and the eternally-tormenting worms, and all torment.”__
Where is the “purgatorial fire” here? And if it in fact existed, where would it be more appropriate for the Saint to speak of it, if not here? Whether the saints are heard by God when they pray for this is not for us to search out._

St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Theodore the Studite.

_And behold, some of the saints who prayed not only for the faithful, but even for the impious, were heard and by their prayers rescued them from eternal torment, __as for example the First Woman-Martyr Thecla rescued Falconila, and the divine Gregory the Dialogist, as it is related, rescued the Emperor Trajan__._

Orthodoxy does have a concept of purgation but there are multiple theories and not a fleshed out dogma because realistically we just don't know, and unlike the western scholastics don't think we can fill in the blanks with our flawed human reason

In orthodoxy, theology is what is revealed to us

ἐν τούτῳ νίκα

or

IC XC NIKA

Theology is by definition not was is revealed, but what uses reason with revelation as principles

A science takes the principles "A -> B" and "A", and uses reason to deduce "B"

In theology, the principles are divine revelation. We just try to flesh them out.