Father Smith Instructs Jackson On Indulgences: A Reformation Day Consideration
October 29, 2008 by iMonk
Update: On a previous Reformation Day, I was lamenting the one-sideness of the current view of the Reformation (Written before my wife’s conversion btw). It was a sad, tragic necessity, but I have no probem lamenting it and I’m no cheerleader for all things “team!!”
_______
Because of the upcoming commemoration of Reformation Day, I would like to reprint some material- penned by a Roman apologist of the previous century- that convinces me that the Reformation, while tragic and sad, was and remains a sad, tragic necessity.
This is what the Reformation continues to be about for me: Does the material below, presented without comment, present Jesus Christ and the Father-God he reveals in his person, life, teachings, death and resurrection? Is this the Gospel? Is this the God of the Gospel?
This will, no doubt, be controversial, but the issue continues to be at the heart of the reformation divide and at the heart of any reconsideration of the meaning of unity. I just finished re-reading the Vatican II documents on Ecumenism. For all their excellence, they do not address the issues raised in the doctrine of indulgences. These are the statements of those who tell us to come home to the true church of Jesus. They ought not to be avoided.
The following is a reprint of a chapter from a very well known Roman Catholic apologetics and catechetical book from the mid-twentieth century, Father Smith Instructs Jackson. Here’s a description of the book from its Amazon.com page.
Over 3 million copies of this timeless classic have been sold while influencing thousands of conversions. Witness the engaging and accessible interplay between a priest and a non-Catholic inquiring about the Faith. Their conversation is a masterpiece in catechesis as Jackson asks the questions generation after generation wants to ask and Father Smith responds with wisdom, wit, Scripture references, and solid Catholic teaching. It is one-on-one catechesis at its finest, delivered in a relevant and practical context much like Jesus himself taught.
The author, Archbishop John Francis Noll, was a stalwart warrior against anti-Catholicism in his time, and founded Our Sunday Visitor, which today is a major Catholic publisher. The book from which this chapter is taken is made up of columns written by Archbishop Noll, later edited into this volume. Several million copies are in print.
The entire book is available in Google books.
The Catechsim of the RCC has the following section on Indulgences.
Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin explains the contemporary RC view of Indulgences at Catholic Answers.
Father S. Tonight our instruction will be on the much misunderstood subject of “Indugences.” It might be best for me to explain first that the conception which the generality of non-Catholics have of Indulgences is most erroneous.
Mr. J. What do they believe to be the church’s teaching?
Father S. Many of them suppose that an Indulgence is a pardon of sin for money, or even a license to commit sin.
Mr. J. I told you the other night that I had heard this, but do you really think that many entertain such notions?
Father S. I am sure of it; recently an aged minister, one who preached for thirty-five years, but who is now drawing a pension as a retired minister, told me that the universally accepted definition of “Indulgence” by the non-Catholic world is “a license to sin for a remuneration.”
Mr. J. Where did they get such an idea?
Father S. Well, it is maintained that the so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century was occasioned by the sale of and traffic in Indulgences; this, they say, is evidence that they are, or were, sold. Then, the plain meaning of the word “Indulgence” is, they say, “a yielding to excess,” a “favor granted,” “a license.” Therefore it is a license to sin for a contribution of money.
Mr. J. How do you answer their charge?
Father S. The ecclesiastical meaning of the Latin word “Indulgentia” means “pardon,” but not a pardon of sin, much less a license to sin. In fact, it has no reference to sin at all, which is pardoned by the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance. It is not a pardon of sin, but of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven.
Mr. J. What is meant by “temporal punishment” still due after the sins are forgiven?
Father S. Let us suppose a case: You have committed a grievous sin, which renders you liable to eternal punishment. But you sincerely repent of and confess the sin, receive absolution, etc.
Mr. J. Yes Father.
Father S. By your good confession, the guilt of the mortal sin was removed, and also the eternal punishment, which you deserved. But if your sorrow was not as earnest and intense as God would have from you, He would possibly show His displeasure by sending you a little misfortune, or, if you died after your confession you might be punished for a brief period in Purgatory. This would be the temporal punishment deserved for your sin. The temporal punishment may be removed by the performance of penances, good works, prayers, etc., but by an “Indulgence,” the Church applies to your soul the merits of Christ for the complete expiation of your fault. A Scripture example will make the case clearer. David, many of whose psalms are outbursts of repentance for two grievous sins he committed, received assurance from God, through the prophet Nathan, that his crimes were forgiven, but that nevertheless his son would be taken from him. This was to be his temporal punishment after he repented and his sin was forgiven.
Mr. J. If the temporal punishment is not endured here, or is not removed by penance or good works, it will be inflicted in Purgatory. Am I right?
Father S. Yes; unless remitted through the application of Christ’s merits to the soul by the Church, by the grant of an Indulgence.
Mr. J. The Indulgence is not granted at the time of confession?
Father S. No; the Church attaches Indulgences to certain prayers, or good works, which become effective if performed by a person who is in the state of grace and otherwise properly disposed. An Indulgence is either Plenary or Partial: that is, either calculated to remove all or only part of the temporal punishment. Partial Indulgences are usually attached to prayers, whilst for a Plenary Indulgence it is nearly always required that the person receive Holy Communion and pay a visit to the church, where he must say more prayers for the success of God’s interests on earth, especially as they are in the mind of the Pope.
Mr. J. Compliance with such conditions always secures the Plenary Indulgence?
Father S. Not always, If the person is somewhat attached to the sin for which the temporal punishment would be due, if his sorrow be not sufficiently intense, he would not gain the Indulgence in all its fullness.
Mr. J. Since an Indulgence can only be gained after the person’s sins are wholly forgiven, I suppose, if a Plenary Indulgence be actually gained before one’s death, that one avoids Purgatory and has assurance of immediate entrance into Heaven, does he not?
Father S. Yes.
Mr. J. Can a person gain an Indulgence for someone else?
Father S. We cannot gain Indulgences for other living persons, but we can gain them for the souls in Purgatory, since the Church makes most Indulgences applicable to them.
Mr. J. And money is never paid for an Indulgence?
Father S. No; as I have said, works of penance, prayers, Holy Communion, visits to a church, etc. may be among the conditions named for the gaining of an Indulgence; and since the Bible recommends alms as a work pleasing to god; the offering of an alms might be asked, but not in return for the Indulgence.
Remember that a person who has not confessed and repented of his sin could not gain an Indulgence for any amount of prayers, alms and good works. Let us refute the case of “Indulgence traffic,” of which the so-called reformer accused the Church. Pope Leo X, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when all Europe was Catholic, decided to erect in Rome a cathedral church such as should exist in the capital city of the Christian world. he asked for small contributions for Catholics throughout Europe, and promulgated a Plenary Indulgence to all who should pray for the success of the cause, go to confession and receive Holy Communion worthily, and contribute an alms towards the erection of the great cathedral. Now any instructed Catholic knows that the Indulgence could not be given in return for an alms, no matter how great, without previous confession and Communion.
I have told you that even today, some good work, such as visiting a church, is required for the gaining of a Plenary Indulgence, even after Confession and Communion. The good work specified in that instance was an alms, but the papal letter expressly declared that the poor could gain the same Indulgence by performing good works of another nature.
Mr. J. To me this instance is much the same as the frequent announcements from Protestant pulpits that Almighty God will grant special favors and blessings to those who contribute for home or foreign missionary work.
Father S. It is quite the same. But to explain the grounds for the non-Catholic contention that Indulgences were sold: At that time there was no telegraph service, there were no daily newspapers to acquaint the people of Europe with the desire and the project of the Pope. It had to be done by sending preachers to the several countries. John Tetzel, head of the Dominican order of priests, was commissioned to preach the Indulgence in Germany. It might be that uninstructed Catholics thought that the Indulgence was given in return for their alms. We shall even grant, for sake of the argument, that Tetzel himself abused his charge, but that would not implicate the Church. It would never have justified Luther of the Augustinian order of priest to repudiate his vows and attack the Church.
Mr. J. John Tetzel was not the Catholic Church.
Those of you who believe that the Prodigal Son isn’t a picture salvation in total are into Pandora’s box. Seriously.
It would seem that the Bible is pretty badly over-written if that’s true.
iMonk: What *do* you do with the parable of the unmerciful servant and all that business about God punishing those he loves in Hebrews? The parable of the prodigal son doesn’t seem to address such matters at all. That’s why I think it relating an aspect, not the totality, of the gospel.
Memphis Aggie wrote:
Still don’t get it – in the sense I don’t share the belief – but I’m clearer on what it is that I don’t get.
So do you believe once saved always saved – in the sense that once you’ve accepted Christ and been saved (check check) your Heaven bound? How does that reconcile with sins of confirmed saved people? Did they not do it right, didn’t mean it etc? Is tis why Protestants don’t have confession?
I believe that if God has redeemed me, he can keep me. Once I’m His, he keeps me that way. As far as sins of saved people go, they’re irrelevent to Salvation. That doesn’t make them irrelevant in an antinomian way. It just means that my performance has no bearing on God’s disposition toward me once I’m in Christ. Sin is a fact of life in the fallen world. It’s gonna happen. But that’s part of the processes I wrote about before. The flesh vs. the spirit. The Old Man vs. the New Man. As Paul said, “For what I wish to do, that I do not do, but that which I hate I do.”
Obed said:
“As far as sins of saved people go, they’re irrelevent to Salvation. That doesn’t make them irrelevant in an antinomian way. It just means that my performance has no bearing on God’s disposition toward me once I’m in Christ.”
I don’t get that at all. What about the Biblical verses warning the just man not to stray and of his punishments if he turns off the path. I guess I agree that “Gods disposition” doesn’t change in the sense that He certainly loves all the souls in Hell. I think we have a difference of definitions. Salvation is realized by entrance into Heaven, so how can serious sin (we would say mortal) not be relevant? How can “your performance have no bearing”? How is that not antinomian?
Please stop calling me Mike, folks. The name is Michael. Unless you are talking to someone else.
C’mon. The prodigal son isn’t about synergism. It’s about an all out resurrection. Our part and God’s part? Aggie, ask any reformation loving Christian if they believe they would go to heaven under any version of that system.
Mark Shea: The discipline passages are referring to those already justified by the all sufficient work of Christ. Hebrews says that we are being sanctified by the one who has already made us holy. Fr. Smith is handing out justification in little bags based on visiting churches. God gives grace freely and sanctifies us by means of a changed heart.
You know all this, as does any convert. Just say that catholics don’t accept any version of justification that is whole and entire upon being joined to Christ. It’s faith + works and you can never be sure. You are the one with a podcast- I think- on how your Christian life never got going till you gave up knowing you were going to heaven.
Obed,
One more bit: doesn’t the warning to “remain in me” imply that the graft to the vine can fail? Further if it (the graft) fails and bears no fruit or falls to the ground then it will be collected and burned.
This is all Biblical – no Pope required to have this disagreement. I don’t see how your performance has no bearing.
Patrick Lynch wrote:
I know this isn’t exactly what you’re saying, but even to the degree that they differ from your opinion, how could you argue the subtleties with them?
Bear with me for not quoting the greater context for the sake of space, but the hypothetical situation you describe is a problem with Christians not really understanding Grace. It’s not really a caracature, because we’ve all seen that kind of thing happen.
However, imagine if the Church in which she got saved had really given her the Gospel rather than just focused on getting her to “make a decision” or “pray the sinner’s prayer” or whatever. Understanding the Gospel and understanding Grace requires us to understand our unworthiness apart from God giving us worth through Jesus. Someone who really understands Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s Grace couldn’t be satisfied with a faith that is centered around using the Bible to criticize people or “knowing everybody else is wrong about most things.” That kind of Pharisaical approach to Christianity is the antithesis of Grace.
When you really understand Grace that makes you more tolerant of others faults because you know how God loves you despite how screwed up you are.
The idea that I can’t do anything to affect God’s disposition to me once I’m in Christ doesn’t make Grace cheap, so to speak. Rather it show’s that Grace is without price. All my good deeds and works are worthless in comparison. But I wanna do ‘em anyway out of love for Him and because that desire is a gift from Him to begin with.
Michael,
“C’mon. The prodigal son isn’t about synergism. It’s about an all out resurrection. Our part and God’s part? Aggie, ask any reformation loving Christian if they believe they would go to heaven under any version of that system.”
That’s an argument? How can you say my interpretation isn’t valid? What’s your reasoning (I won’t ask for your Authority :=) ). I can read as well as you, I don’t see why my interpretation doesn’t fit just cause reformation loving Christians don’t like it. Why can’t you read it my way? Seems right out of the text to me.
Catholic friends:
Law and Gospel.
Law and Gospel.
He who knows the difference has become a true theologian.
I won’t tell you who said that, but it’s very true.
Aggie:
You can come up with Indulgences strictly through scripture? Please….show me where the 30 minutes of reading scripture as a plenary Indulgence is found in scripture.
You’re reading scripture with your presuppositions in tow, just like I am.
MS
Two seconds on Google and I find Luther.
OK I’ll play along because I seek mercy not justice and recognize that I’m not righteous under the law.
Even so doesn’t a soul have to accept grace and remain true? Are you saying like Obed seems to be that any future sins are just covered? So if we’re all under the mercy does that gives you a total pass on the Law?
Also to defend the Father S I’d argue he’s offering means of sanctification not justification. Clear enough difference to me – why do you reject it?
Michael,
You misread me I’m saying I can come up with a need to cooperate with grace through scripture. I haven’t been talking indulgences for a long while since I don’t fully understand the details.
“You’re reading scripture with your presuppositions in tow, just like I am”
I’ll cop to that wholeheartedly. I’m hoping for and explanation , not an argument
“As far as sins of saved people go, they’re irrelevent to Salvation.”
Ummm – yes, but… the workings out of this to the extremes leads to James Hogg’s “Confessions of a Justified Sinner”, in which one of the temptations to the protagonist is to commit murder, because if he’s *really* saved, and if he *really* believes he’s saved, and if *nothing* he does can affect his salvation, then if he is afraid to do this, that means he doesn’t *really* believe, and if he doubts his salvation, he’s *really* damned.
Which I don’t think for one moment you’re advocating, but (1) agreed we cannot earn or deserve or buy or merit salvation (2) however, what we do does affect our eternal fate.
I sometimes wonder do (some) Calvinists think when Adam and Eve were created, they were predestined to fall? Or, if they were saved, then how could they sin? And if the sins of saved people don’t affect their salvation, then how could our first parents’ disobedience have any effect?
But to row back one moment: indulgences are a juridical measure, not a salvation one. It’s to do with the temporal effects of the penalties attached to sin, not the effects of guilt upon salvation.
The same way a court of law does not try the state of a murderer’s soul, but the penalties attached to the crime. The murderer/thief/perjurer may be saved by the grace of God and be heaven-bound. He or she still has to serve a sentence, or make reparation to the victims of his or her crime.
Aggie:
I don’t want to start quoting scripture. Yes, he is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Yes, future sins are paid for. Yes, the law is totally honored by Christ as our substitute and mediator. The law has lost its sting completely. We now relate to the law as justified persons. We come to the law as those who know the law has been completely honored by Christ and when we fail to obey the law, our union with Christ does not change.
If I want to fight I’ll call my family and talk politics. I authentically don’t get the Protestant position – it doesn’t compute for me. Maybe I’m just slow but I really don’t get it – it seems too pat too simplified.
..show me where the 30 minutes of reading scripture as a plenary Indulgence is found in scripture.
“Whatever you bind..in Heaven…”
OK Michael. Flesh that out a bit with an example of what happens to the man who was saved yet goes out to commit an undeniable sin like murder. Assume I’m ignorant (I’m certainly less schooled) – go ahead and quote scripture I’m happy to hear it – preach please!
Memphis Aggie wrote:
I don’t get that at all. What about the Biblical verses warning the just man not to stray and of his punishments if he turns off the path. I guess I agree that “Gods disposition” doesn’t change in the sense that He certainly loves all the souls in Hell. I think we have a difference of definitions. Salvation is realized by entrance into Heaven, so how can serious sin (we would say mortal) not be relevant? How can “your performance have no bearing”? How is that not antinomian?
The key qualifier to everything I’ve written is that it only applies to those who are “saved” or “in Christ” or whatever. It only applies for folks who are in a spiritual state of having Christ’s sacrifice taking their place before God.
Paul’s writings in Romans 7 & 8 (really, most of the book) deal explicitly with this isssue. He talks about the tendancy to sin. He talks about the relation of Law and Grace. He talks about what it means to be “in Christ.” It’s pretty clear in context. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
What part of “no” in that verse don’t people get?
Isn’t Christ the fulfillment of the Law – not it’s elimination? If there’s a conflict between the Gospel and the Law doesn’t that imply a failure of our understanding?
How can I say I love Christ then break His law?
You mean like David?
If he’s a justified man, he repents (Psalm 51).
Your question suggests that your view of faith is of a commitment to obedience. Our view of faith is a reliance on Christ alone for rightness with God.
I break God’s law a thousand times a week. At least. And Christ died for each one and graciously forgives each one, and gives me his gift of righteousness for each one.
But to row back one moment: indulgences are a juridical measure, not a salvation one. It’s to do with the temporal effects of the penalties attached to sin, not the effects of guilt upon salvation.
The same way a court of law does not try the state of a murderer’s soul, but the penalties attached to the crime. The murderer/thief/perjurer may be saved by the grace of God and be heaven-bound. He or she still has to serve a sentence, or make reparation to the victims of his or her crime.
And that I have no problem with in principle. For me, the disagreement is based on:
1. The authority of the clergy to make such judgement. As someone who believes wholeheartedly in the Priesthood of all Believers, I cannot buy that.
2. The idea that the above can affect whether or not God is pleased or angry with me.
3. The entire concept of Purgatory being rolled into the above.
OK Obed,
I get that part but read it differently “for those who are IN Christ” there is no law, and all sins are washed clean, but I argue that you must “REMAIN IN him” and that our future performance matters while we are in the world. Does that make sense to you?
Hmmm. I think I’ll stick with: A theologian is one who prays and one who prays is a theologian.
I sin often as well (venial sin that is) and I do view obedience as a major part of faith: if I love Christ I love His Law and His Mercy. I believe that if I were to deliberately sin in a grave matter I would effectively be rejecting Christ and that I would loose grace/salvation. Does that formulation make sense to you?
Here’s the best explanation of the Gospel I know of outside of Romans and Galatians.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/c/acanitbe.htm
Turn down the sound.
Guys, I don’t want to sound like I am evangelizing you. Any Protestant confession, such as the Westminster Confession of faith, can explain our view of the Gospel in detail.
I respect you guys too much to engage in a debate, and I’m really not this much into comments
I understand you completely, but my vileness is on display continually, and my sins all nailed Jesus to the cross. All my sins since Feb 1974 have been done knowing Jesus died for me. Many of my sins are premeditated.
If works or obedience on my part are required for acceptance with God, then I am damned. Christ, however, loved me and gave himself for me. There is now no condemnation for me. I am in union with the one and only mediator and in the New Covenant he will never disown me, but promises I have eternal life.
Michael,
I think David is a good example. I think he has an obligation to repent – to seek forgiveness and I expect that it has to be a sincere effort. So David has a role to play in his own salvation (a really minor one but a crucial one). David must seek forgiveness and do penance. God forgives him but still visit temporal punishments anyway so that forgiveness does not mean no consequences (wasn’t this covered by someone else already).
When I hear the total passivity argument it sounds like we don’t do anything at all, but I’m sure that’s not what you really mean. I think of our part as (to borrow of phrase from molecular bio) “necessary but insufficient”.
We absolutely, unequivocally deny that grace is a quantifiable thing to be parceled out.
Like I said, the analogy limps. We agree that it cannot be quantified. But it can be qualified, no? Do y’all disagree that grace cannot be increased or decreased? God can’t give more or less? My “x” is thereby “grace” and my “y” is thereby “grace upon grace”.
Indulgences are not about grace
That’s not true, Martha. Certainly they have nothing to do with operative grace (i.e., the grace of initial conversion), but they are cooperative grace (the grace of growth in holiness). It is the merits of Christ (i.e., grace) that make them possible (cf. CCC 1478).
Can I say Indulgences are an aspect of sanctification?
Brandon, yes. From a Reformed perspective of justification and sanctification, indulgences have nothing to do with justification and everything to do with sanctification.
As for Michael’s comments, is this what it is boiling down to? Less about indulgences and more about the different ways both camps use the same words. You probably know this already, but others who may not:
1) Catholic initial justification/sanctification = Protestant justification.
2) Catholic further justification/sanctification = Protestant sanctification.
Both camps agree that #1 is a gift given to us at God’s initiative, unmerited, completely free. Both camps (I think) agree that #2 is a gift of God’s grace in cooperation with our will (i.e., our works are an outgrowth of the grace we have received).
So it is slightly confusing for people to claim that Catholics are dolling out “justification” (in the Protestant sense), when really, we’re receiving “further justification/sanctification” (in the Catholic sense), or sanctification (in the Protestant sense).
Again the distinction between justification and sanctification needs to be emphasized.
Distinction, not division.
Justification is a portion of Union in Christ in which we are united to Christ by grace alone being counted to us through faith alone apart from works. This is the classic Reformed position.
Sanctification is a portion of union in Christ by which we work out our salvation because of Christ’s infused righteousness into us.
Both are aspects of our union with Christ and are portions of salvation. Saying that works are not necessary for salvation is just silly. Every Reformer acknowledged they were. That is simply not the debate.
>…we don’t do anything at all…
No, you’ve pretty much got me there. I do not consider faith technically to be doing. That “faith works” is true, but we are justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.
“Further justification” does make sense in Catholicism, but it doesn’t make sense in Protestantism, but Rob C’s post is helpful. There is a lot of linguistic banter that amounts to differing points of view.
But I believe Galatians 1 and Galatians in general teaches the Lutheran view of faith, works and justification.
I’m done folks. I don’t do well in this level of debate. I’m not going over and I don’t want a believing Catholic to come over. We understand each other but we read the Bible and think of God quite differently.
peace
MS
Brandon, when you say works are necessary to salvation, you need to keep talking or you are going to leave a very wrong impression to a Roman Catholic reader.
Remember that they believe imputation is a “legal fiction.”
Obed and Michael,
“When you really understand Grace that makes you more tolerant of others faults because you know how God loves you despite how screwed up you are.”
“I break God’s law a thousand times a week. At least. And Christ died for each one and graciously forgives each one, and gives me his gift of righteousness for each one.”
I’m with you on this, but I for one am stuck in it. I’m failing completely at the moment to see, however, how any doctrine of substitutionary atonement, no matter how much it emphasizes the availing of grace vs. human efforts at righteousness, doesn’t, at best, replace sacrifices at the Temple and public redress of wrongs with endless, grinding introspection. In the long run, the most successful arguers of irresistible grace / against cheap grace are forced to make the most juridical arguments. I’m absolutely perplexed by this paradox: that Protestant ideas of grace could lead to this much letter-parsing?
Introspection’s killing me. I’d rather sacrifice a goat than try to figure out how affirming Calvinism’s going to save me. I should probably not post if I’m this bewildered.
Patrick wrote:
Introspection’s killing me. I’d rather sacrifice a goat than try to figure out how affirming Calvinism’s going to save me.
And I think that’s why Grace is so misunderstood. Most folks would rather sacrifice a goat than deal with the unquantifiable nature of a New Covenant life.
I should have been Jewish.
imonk
I’ve been clear that works are necessary for salvation and any Reformed Protestant should be comfortable with that.
But I’ve tried to show that it has nothing to do with justification but with sanctification. We cannot merit anything by our working. But our sanctification is wrought in us because of the infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us. Justification is imputation, sanctification is infusion.
I know they come from a different perspective, but this is why I’m trying to help them understand what a Protestant doctrine on salvation is. It is not just a doctrine of justification or a doctrine of sanctification. It is a cohesive (yet distinct) doctrine of union with Christ that brings justification (imputation) and sanctification (infusion).
Thanks Michael
It’s a bit confusing but I’m closer to understanding what you believe. I appreciate the patience and restraint that everyone has shown in trying to explain rather than to argue. We do in fact believe different things, but I find I can easily misconstrue what you believe and that at least is fixable.
Rob C, I didn’t want to get into the whole parsing of sanctifying grace, operative grace, etc.
Michael – we all sin and fall short. That’s true. We all have to pick ourselves up again and again. There’s a reason why we’re told to forgive our brothers seventy times seven, and that’s because our brothers will offend us (and we’ll offend them) that many times.
But I imagine you don’t just tra-la-la along, being a total pain in the neck, and brushing it off with “I’m saved, so ya-boo sucks to you!”? You do make some efforts at avoiding the same old, same old? You try to conform your will to the will of God?
As regards works – praying, reading the Bible, tithing, giving your time, will not OF THEMSELVES save our souls. But gabbling some version of the Sinnner’s Prayer, or saying “I believe!” and then living as if you don’t is not going to cut it either.
I dunno – at this stage, I’m thinking that if the Church dropped the fine theological language and went all warm’n'fuzzy with some kind of mega-emergent-ownbrand pastor-style ‘God’s grace is so abundantly overflowing that all you have to do is hold your hands out for it to drip down like blessed oil anointing you!’ method of presenting indulgences, Protestants would have fewer problems.
Something along the lines of, I dunno, Elijah and the widow’s flour, or Elisha and the widow’s oil.
Yeah, we’ve probably flogged this horse quite enough (the bones of 200 comments?)
My last stab at increasing mystification about indulgences is along the lines of since we are sons of God, we have a share in the family and rights by virtue of our status. God loves us so much, He shares with us.
It is by no virtue of our own, but all by the grace and mercy of God, that we can do anything. But God lets us help one another. The Elder Brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son is supposed to love and forgive his younger brother. This is not usurping the father’s rights, or putting himself in the father’s place, or taking anything from the father. If the elder brother can be merciful as the father is merciful, he shows himself his father’s son.
It all derives from the father’s mercy.
I really am starting to think that Catholics and Protestants are talking past each other on the works issue– at least these days. I don’t know how many Reformed Baptists repeat over and over that if you think you contribute in any way to your salvation, you’re not really “save.” They’ll bust out the anathema in Galatians until the cows come home. They’ll be N.T. Wright with it.
…then they’ll turn around and say, “By the way, if you are doing A, B, or C, you’re probably not elect.”
Is this not just works snuck in through a back door?
I can’t type this morning. I mean “They’ll beat N.T. Wright with it.”
Sheesh. I also meant to type, “By the way, if you are not doing A, B, or C, you’re probably not elect.”
Rob C, Catholic theology has traditionally presented grace as quantifiable. Indulgences prior to Vatican II measured the grace distributed very exactly, using a day of penance under long-dead medieval canons as the unit.
However, I think I was not round enough in explaining myself: Not only do we deny grace can be quantified, but we also deny that grace is a “thing” to be distributed at all. Instead, we say that grace is God’s free and favorable acceptance of us in and for the sake of Jesus Christ. This is diametrically opposed to Catholic theology, which places a great deal of emphasis on “created grace” as a thing God makes that we can earn from him. In Catholic theology, grace is a thing God makes and distributes to lesser authorities who then have the right and ability to distribute it in various ways; it is ultimately external to God. A priest can put in holy water, or the pope can attach it to an indulgence. It’s why there are many Catholic prayers begging Mary for grace–the idea is that God has given the Virgin a superabundance of it, and then she has the ability to distribute it. By contrast, Lutherans identify grace with the very heart of God.
And Catholic “initial justification” is not the same as the Lutheran doctrine of justification at all. Futhermore, it can be merited “congruently” but not “condignly,” according to Trent.
“Grace as thing God makes” the connotation of “thing” hit me as negative; could just be internet ears, could be his intent.
The ‘thing’ in Catholic understanding is His life.
CCC 2023 “Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the sould to heal it of sin and to santify it”.
Happy All Saints!
Jenny
Jenny,
I appreciate that statement from the CCC, but I don’t see how anyone can deny that the RCC believes that grace is, to a great extent, substantial and is dispensed by material means and church authority.
That someone saw past this is commendable. Merton wrote eloquently that grace was not ultimately a “thing.” But what view of grace is taught in Indulgences? You are getting “this much” and not “all.”
peace
MS
Josh S, I’ve always thought that grace as a quantifiable thing goes hand in hand with the OT scriptures where God talks about delivering various blessings, as if a blessing were a discreet thing. Jesus blesses things all the time, as did the men of the Temple, right? Disclaimer: I’ve always understood grace and blessing to be sort of interchangeable.
I can’t speak to the theology behind blessing at all, but, however appealing an purely noumenal view of grace might be, it’s hard (for me, not knowing much) to reconcile it to what Jesus / the OT demonstrates about grace, blessing and cursing (and miracles, even?) – which I imagine to be within the same superaddition to our paradigm of reality that characterizes God’s intervention in our lives.
Jesus blessed stuff, and people. God blessed nations, men. It would seem, some more than others. The Protestant idea of grace is philosophically attractive to me, but I seem to remember from CCD that people have different amounts of charism – something I associate foggily with the parable of the talents, and stories from the OT about Elijah (or Elisha?) and items made holy. I can’t make sense of how various instances of grace aren’t somehow temporal quantities of grace, as well as a “quality” of God’s added to reality somehow.
Confused
…then they’ll turn around and say, “By the way, if you are doing A, B, or C, you’re probably not elect.”
Is this not just works snuck in through a back door?
Yep… scary, ain’t it?
It’s not. It can be a problem, but I don’t have time for that debate.
Read Shreiner and Canaday, The Race Set Before Us.
iMonk,
who are you responding to in that last comment? If it’s to me, then what I expressed wasn’t a flippant attempt to sidetrack the discussion, but rather something I’m really struggling with. People like A.W. Pink leave me convinced that EVERYONE is going to Hell.
I believe I was responding to you, but where did you gey “flippant?” I was literally going out the door when I typed it, and I still don’t have time (literally) to have a huge debate on the reformed tendency to introspection as a work.
But I said I agree it CAN be a problem, and I cited the best work I know of on the issue.
But for the record, if the reformed can sometimes turn faith into works by a wrong emphasis, Catholicism rejects the radical implications of the fall and tells us that salvation is synergistic. And that sends me to hell immediately. It’s either Luther’s doctrine- ramped up a bit- or universalism if I am to have any hope at all.
peace
MS