On the Lack of Context in Luther Quotes

Misquoting Luther actually has a long history in RC polemics, as James Swan has amply documented. In the previous thread on Luther, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang but little if any interaction with the context of Dave Armstrong's Luther citations. I asked him several times to explain if his citations of Luther support his comments about how Luther felt, and he responded by citing completely different sources to support his contentions. Not only that, but one of his readers, Adomnan, cited by him in that thread, stated this:

You, Dave, accurately quote Luther saying A. Swan digs up the texts where Luther said A (or some other text he sees as related), and notes that he also said B, C, D and E, the "context" of A. Swan then claims that because Luther said B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A, it follows that he didn't say, or didn't mean, A.

This is false on the face of it and, in my opinion, deserves no response other than perhaps a curt dismissal.

Keep in mind this was quoted approvingly by Dave Armstrong.  According to Adoman, only "A" matters. Nothing else is context if Mr. Swan thinks it is related. Indeed it cannot be related because according to Admonan, context can never make "A" mean "Not A".  That is a childish and naive view of how language works. We do not understand verbal communication by having a dictionary handy, nor do we ignore rhetorical devices such as irony, exaggeration etc. By ignoring context we only increase the likelihood that we will get something wrong.

Taking Luther out of Context

Over at Beggars All  James Swan has been going through Dave Armstrong's book, Protestantism Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic. I have not done anywhere near the work James has done on Luther's works, but on the occasions I have responded to outrageous Luther quotes I have found that he is taken out of context more often than not. It seems to me that James' context makes Dave's claims rather difficult to believe. It seems to me that if one has to take Luther out of context to "prove" something about "protestantism", that perhaps one's own position is a bit weaker than one would like.

Finally, this does not mean that one has to agree with Luther, but one should disagree with him based on what he actually believed and said, and not because of quotations taken out of context.

Authority Claims

Although I have written about this before, I would like to make the point again.

In a typical discussion about any controversy between a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the RC or EO will just claim apostolic succession means his church is the church. Since his church is the ancient church and the Lutherans are not, Lutheran claims can be given a polite hearing, but ultimately they cannot be true because the Lutherans don't have apostolic succession, which the real church has. In this way, apostolic succession can rhetorically do away with any issue which is difficult for a RC or EO to deal with. Anything the Lutheran says is either his personal opinion or the received personal opinion of someone who is outside the Church while the RC or EO is merely following apostolic succession. So, no headway can ever be made, though as I said the Lutheran may be given a polite hearing.

However, when the Lutheran simply asks "why is your apostolic succession better than (insert alternative apostolic succession)?" the RC or EO has no comeback which can be compelling. This is because it is not logically necessary that if one believes in apostolic succession one will therefore be RC, EO, Armenian, Coptic etc. And since in the vast majority of cases online the RC or EO is arguing from authority either explicitly or implicitly, if he cannot prove his authority there is no reason to take his claim of authority seriously . That is, unless he can show that his authority must be the true authority without appealing to that authority. It is as if I just cited passages from the Book of Concord and then waited for all the RCs and EOs to accept what the Lutheran Church teaches as gospel. (Which it is...) This means the RC or EO has to use (get ready!) private interpretation to determine for himself or prove to another why his apostolic succession is the apostolic succession. Given that much of their polemic is based on a Lutheran's private interpretation as opposed to their mere reception of the teachings of the church in apostolic succession, they are loathe to do so. In fact, in my experience they do not do so but just try and assert that their apostolic succession is the real deal.

Now, I don't think this makes their claims necessarily wrong, it is just that it is a byproduct of their over investment in the argument from authority. Since they have been arguing for years (often in Newmanian fashion) that they are fortunate they do not have to use private interpretation while Lutherans do, the wheels basically come off the cart and they don't have a lot to say, for it turns out they are choosing and judging, too.

I really think this simple argument defangs theirs, though it does not disprove it.

Interestingly, we Lutherans have a stake in this. We do not believe we are sui generis but the inheritors and preservers of the Tradition, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and which is preserved in the Scriptures, as St. Irenaeus said. This Tradition was handed down through the Church, i.e. an institution, and does not come to us apart from the Word. So in many cases we will argue like the RC or EO--the Church has said e.g. Jesus Christ is of the same substance (or ousia) as the Father, and this is the correct interpretation of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Anything which differs from this is not part of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Yet it is different, because we believe the Church is gathered around the Gospel proclamation--here in the form of Baptism, there in the form of a sermon, over the hill in the form of a book or a believer's testimony. The Gospel is the "regula fide", not the pronouncements of councils, bishops or popes. For example, Arianism is wrong not because it is implausible or because no one spoke like an Arian before Arius (Justin Martyr had some odd ideas about the Logos.....), but because if Arius was right, their is no longer a Gospel. We know this from the Scriptures and it is clarified because of how the Church prayed and worshiped. So for us, the worship life of the Church points to the Tradition written down by the Apostles, and when it agrees with this written Tradition we can know to a certainty what that Tradition is. I contrast this with the RC and EO way of presenting things--at least online: We don't know anything unless we have an interpreter. Anything you say is unsure because words can mean anything etc.

Which brings me to my final point. I wonder how much of the reliance on authority, and how many converts move from Wittenberg to Rome or Constantinople, because our culture is imbud with and drunk upon post-modernism. If words can literally mean just about anything, then I suppose we do need an infallible interpreter. I just wish he didn;t have to use words to infallibly teach...

When the facts are on your side....

I see a pattern in how any critique of RCism is dealt with by RC apologists. Let's suppose I wave 1 Clement 32 under an apologist's nose:

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Well now, that seems pretty straight forward--we are saved by faith and not works--even our godliness and works done in purity of heart. So, Clement seems to have taught something like justification by faith alone, which is a torpedo amidships for accusations of Luther's "innovation".

Well, no, if you ask an RC apologist.

You see, Clement is RC, so he must agree with the current position of the RCC.

I think this is besides the point.

If I argued that Trent said justification by faith alone is the true doctrine of justification, RC apologists would not bother with "The writers of Trent are RC, so an RC interpretation is the correct one", they would argue from the words of Trent themselves. And they would be right, and it would be trivial to show I am wrong since justification by faith alone is explicitly condemned.

What I am getting to is this, there is an old lawyer saw that goes something like this:

"When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition."

I submit that when an apologist, be he RC, EO, Lutheran or whatever, argues from generalities to make what is written mean something quite different from what seems to be the natural sense of what is written, he tacitly admits he does not have the facts on his side. I think something like this is going on with this Clement quote--the RCs have tacitly admitted the facts are on not their side, so they change the subject to "If Clement is RC he agrees with us..." This is a common tactic in my experience.

I also think pope St. Clement did teach something very like justification by faith alone.

Is the Pope still Catholic?

An interesting statement by Pope Benedict:

"Luther, the pope had told his audience, had been right to insist in sola fide, that a believer was justified by faith alone!"

Now, before we get too excited, here is how the pope defined faith:

"The pope defined faith as 'identification with Christ expressed in love for God and neighbour'. Such love fulfilled the law. Being justified meant simply being with Christ and in Christ. Christ alone was sufficient."

Depending on what "identification with Christ" means, there may be something significant here. Lutherans believe the faith by which we are saved is that we believe and take as our own what God has promised in Christ. This faith is the gift of God the Holy Spirit given through the preached Gospel. I can't place my finger on it, but it does seem to me that the pope's definition of faith is a different one, and it seems to me that it is centered on "identification with...".

This may cause some e-apologists heads to explode though:

"Luther had correctly translated Paul's words as 'justified by faith alone', the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed, as reported in the newspaper."

This translation was a famous "scurrilous interpolation" by Luther who only wanted to import his subjective, private judgement into the translation of the Bible, according to more than one RC e-apologist I have read.

Link:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

Venerating Saints

I have been told that, by definition, worship is not given to saints in the RCC. It was easy, according to the RC apologists, to tell if worship was being given to a saint's relics or not--or even to a saint, or the Mother of God. If there is no sacrifice, no worship is given. That was actually a pretty good argument, because they are not beholden to a prot view of what worship is. No matter how similar the actions looked, or how similar the words sound to worship they could simply point to their doctrine that if one is not sacrificing, one is not worshiping; hence by definition saints are not worshiped.

QED

I recently came across these two verses of Scripture in another discussion forum:

Ephes 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Col 3:5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

While there may be a plausible explanation offered to explain why St. Paul is not really speaking about worship, I don't see it. I think it looks like the fine distinctions used to say that the saints are never worshiped in e.g. venerating bones is beginning to break down. The citations above show what amounts to "non-sacrificial worship", which should be a contradiction in terms, given the typical RC distinction made. The highlighted terms used in the passages cited above are EIDOLOLATRIS and EIDOLOLATREIA respectively, so St. Paul is plainly speaking abut worship, which is latreia. Maybe they could say that proper veneration of the saints is never latreia but proper dulia, but they cannot simply rule idolatry out of court simply because by nature nothing is latreia without a sacrifice. This means a lot more weight is given to what people actually say and do as opposed to a sort of objective yardstick to determine if worship is given.

The distinction seems to a notion one keeps in one's head because St. Paul blatantly called actions without sacrifice worship, and I think he has a lot of authority. And as we all know, it is very easy for us to rationalize what we think we are doing even if we are doing something wrong. That is why the "kinetic" and material parts of worship are important. One could think one has the proper distinction in one's head, but in reality one is actually giving idolatrous worship to something made with hands and is deceived because of what one does. If the definition or worship is more "kinetic" such that it by definition rules out a given set of acts actually being worship, this is not nearly as much of an issue. Absent the "kinetic" bulwark though, traditional prot critiques of e.g. bone venerating have a lot more force. It can be very easy to become an idolater--especially when the actions of adoration of an icon look so similar to worship.

The Imperial Cult and Martyrdom

Would early Christians find devotions to the saints akin to worship of the Roman Emperor? Is worship of the emperor akin to the worship of mary? (hyperdulia).

We should keep in mind that the RCC only considers an act to be worship if a sacrifice is made. So, for RCs, offering incense to the statue of the emperor would be worship. (Biblically though, worship can also be contrition, prayers etc.) I believe this is a distinction with no difference--many Christians were martyred for refusing to worship a being they certainly thought were lower than the Triune God.

For Lutherans, to worship is to receive the gifts God offers in the preaching of the word and in Holy Baptism, Holy Communion and absolution. So, for us any veneration in exchange for such blessings would be wrongful worship, which is due only to God.

Now, let us start with the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Chapter 8
“What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?”

Sacrifice was specifically requested. Thus, as a Christian, he could not offer this worship toward the Emperor.

Chapter 9
“Have respect to your old age,” and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], “Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists. hen Polycarp with solemn countenance looked upon the whole multitude of lawless heathen that were in the stadium, and waved his hand to them; and groaning and looking up to heaven he said, 'Away with the atheists.'”

No sacrifice, but a specific request to renounce the Christians--“Away with the Atheists”. Polycarp adroitly turned the "Away with the atheists" statement around, but he did not do so with swearing by Caesar, because that would be worship.

Chapter 10
“Swear by the fortune of Cæsar,”

No sacrifice, no denunciation. In other words, no worship. It sounds like the proconsul was ready do compromise. For Lutherans, swearing by the fortune of Caesar constitutes worship, because to do so is to ask for a supernatural benefit from a mere man.

Now, though the emperors were called "gods", we should keep in mind that the actual term used was "divus" or "divine", a lesser state of deity, if you will. Hence, the emperor was not offered latraea. So, even the Roman Emperors were not worshiped in the same way a Christian would worship the Triune God, he was a lower order of being--similar to St. Mary and the other saints.

So, what does RC Marian devotion look like?

Another recommended Marian devotion is wearing the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. There are many Scapulars, all valuable, but this one is eminent among them. There is a very ancient tradition that St. Simon Stock, Superior of the Carmelite Order in England in 1251, after imploring the help of Our Lady, was favored with a vision in which she gave him the Scapular, saying: "This will be a privilege for you and for all Carmelites, that he who dies in this will not suffer eternal fire." The historical evidence for this vision is very impressive, and gives at least some degree of moral certitude that the vision really did take place. To gain this promise one must be enrolled in the Confraternity of the Scapular. Pope Pius XII, on the 700th anniversary of this vision, wrote to the Major Superiors of the Carmelites, clearly showing his belief in it: "For not with a light or passing matter are we here concerned, but with the obtaining of eternal life itself, which is the substance of the Promise of the Most Blessed Virgin which has been handed down to us."

However, the Pope warned that the mere physical wearing of the Scapular is not enough: "May it be to them a sign of their Consecration to the Most Sacred Heart of the Immaculate Virgin, which in recent times we have so strongly recommended." If one then uses the Scapular as the outward sign of living such a Marian consecration, then faith in the fulfillment of the promise is well justified. In fact, Pope Pius XI said (Explorata res. Feb. 2, 1923): "Nor would he incur eternal death whom the Most Blessed virgin assists, especially at his last hour. This opinion of the Doctors of the Church, in harmony with the sentiments of the Christian people, and supported by the experience of all times, depends especially on this reason: the fact that the Sorrowful Virgin shared in the work of the Redemption with Jesus Christ." In other words, a solid Marian devotion is certain to bring one close to Jesus Christ, and so will assure one of reaching salvation, even if the vision to St. Simon Stock might not be authentic. Also, when Vatican II said that all things recommended by the Magisterium of the Church towards her should still be considered matters of great importance, the Scapular was clearly included, for numerous Popes have recommended it strongly.
From a Lutheran standpoint, this is worship--performing pilgrimage to carry out a change within us.

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryd7.htm

Clearly, one consecrates one's self to St. Mary, and receives a guarantee of salvation so long as one's devotion is true. Of course, I am aware that RCs believe this salvation actually comes from Jesus. My concern here though, is do discern how the RCs differentiate between the devotion to the vergin via the scapular, and merely swearing by the genius of one's ruler. Clearly neither is "worship" in the RC sense--nothing is sacrificed. However, Christians were willing to die in order to avoid a simple act of obeisance to the emperor, while similar devotion to St. Mary is encouraged. What, in the Imperial cult, made throwing incense in the name of the Emperor’s “genius” idolatry, while invoking Our Lady Mary to save us is not?

Vengeance is mine, but I will not repay!

When God punishes sin, does he take vengeance upon the sinner? By vengeance, I do not mean a petulant rage, like a child who smashes his block building because of a flaw. I mean a righteous repayment for sin, either eternal or temporal.

I ask because I keep thinking about the discussion I had with Dr. Liccione, RC philosopher and expositor of the infallibility of the Majesterium. In this discussion I claimed that Trent Session 14 contradicted the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Here is the pertinent section of the CCC:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it 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. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

(Emph. added)

Now, Dr. Liccione said that the CCC is clear, that when God is said to punish sin in Trent, we should take it to mean that God punishes us by allowing the effects of our sin take hold of us, he is not actively punishing, he is only willing that those effects take place, which is termed "vengeance".

I just don't see Trent, or the Scriptures, or anything else in prior Church history teaching any such thing. Are we really to believe that God is not active in inflicting (Trent's term BTW) punishment? Aren't there numerous passages in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Fathers, even in Church art which tell the story of a vengeful God punishing evil? I am not trying to score cheap debating points, but it seems there is more than a little tension between RC tradition before the CCC, and RC tradition post CCC. If "If any one saith, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by Him..." really means something like "If any one saith, that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by allowing the consequences of the sin to afflict the sinner..." then words really have no meaning, and we are at the extreme end of nominalism, which is not a good place to be, because it only causes confusion.

A for us Lutherans, when God says he inflicts, he inflicts, because if he wanted to say allow, or inspire a council to tell the truth, he would have said allow. That may be too simple for the learned, but it is much more graspable than constantly "clarifying", or in effect saying words have no meaning.

It is, in fact, a big reason I came over to Wittenburg all those years ago.

Faith in Christ precedes Trust in the Bible

Over on becominghinged, there is a discussion regarding whether or not the CCC contradicts Trent on sin and punishment. While I find that discussion interesting, I was challenged because I wrote that Trent and the CCC apparently contradict on the matter of temporal and eternal punishment. The challenge was

I’ve seen non-Christians use the same argument against the apparent contradictions in scripture. What do we say to them that won’t sound like the same kind of “nuancing” that you accuse the Catholic Church of?

My response was

Regarding what atheists say about the scriptures–I don’t think the Holy Scriptures are meant to be read as a strict history text, but as a proclamation through the writers by God of Jesus Christ. So, I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God. Or, the Bible is true because Christ is true, and Christ has known me, and I him, from my Baptism.

(Here is my stop loss-when I say the Bible should not be read as a strict history text, I meant that questions like how many women were present at Christ's tomb are of no interest to me, because the Gospels are not detailed histories of every event they record, but they are none the less true).

Dr. Liccione responded to this by saying

Your brand of Protestantism is quite problematic even by Protestant standards. You say: “I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God. Or, the Bible is true because Christ is true, and Christ has known me, and I him, from my Baptism.” Well, if your knowledge of and faith in Christ is thus epistemically prior to the Bible, then sola scriptura is out for you, and you claim knowledge of the deposit of faith through a Tradition that is epistemically, and presumably temporally, prior to the Bible. But by whose account of Tradition? Whatever the answer, what authority can they claim? Do you claim to know which ecclesial authority, if any, speaks with the infallible authority of Christ? If so, why? And if none does, at least according to you, then how can you distinguish your faith from mere personal opinion? Even apart from any specifically Catholic-Protestant issue, these are very serious questions for you.

Here is what I mean by "I start with Christ and then believe the Bible, I don’t start with the Bible and then extrapolate what it tells me of God." I believed Christ before I believed the Bible, it is as simple as that. Dr. Liccone says that therefore my knowledge of Christ is before the Bible. I never said anything about knowledge in an intellectual sense, I said I start with Christ before I believed in the Bible. And when I said that I do not then go forth and extrapolate doctrines, I mean that I did not read the Bible, decide it was true, and then decide to believe certain things about Christ--that is a Baptist/Evangelical way of doing things, I am Lutheran and we do not do things that way, we depend on the things Christ provided to the Church to make Christians, Baptism, Holy Communion and the verbal proclamation of the Gospel. So Dr. Liccione is jumping to conclusions here, giant leaps in fact. Sorry, but Sola Scriptura is not out for me, and I think Dr. Liccione's question has a misunderstanding embedded into it. Lutherans believe the Scriptures because they point to Christ, they have Christ as their center, not man. Traditions, infallible "ecclesial authority" or what ever else the RC apologist can throw at me has man at its center, not Christ. Just look at the arguments typically made, or look at Dr. Liccione's statement above; I am to see what authority the ecclesial authority I choose has based on my determination as to whether it speaks with Christ's infallible voice. I am at the center, not Christ, because I decide.

Instead of this, I proclaim that Christ himself baptized me and made me his own, so he knew me and I know him--though not intellectually--more like how an infant knows his mother and father. The "ecclesialogical authority" gives me Jesus' body and blood, and proclaims his love for me and what he did. It is infallible becausse Christ made promises, and he never lies, the infallibility is centered on Christ and not on man. If an "ecclesial authority" can provide people with the things Christ promised, it "works" as an "ecclesial authority", though it may sow tares of false traditions among the wheat of the Sacraments and Gospel preaching, and therefore may destroy trust in the promises of Christ. And we also therefore don't need detailed formulations about exactly when the infallible "ecclesiological authority" is infallible or not--because the Sacraments are infallible, because Christ himself made promised regarding what he does in and through them.

As for Sola Scriptura, I know this is true because God tells me so in his word, the Bible, which proclaims Christ, how he gives himself to us in Baptism and Holy Communion, and in the absolution I receive from the ordained minister in the Church I attend. I don't think it is too hard to grasp.

Now, I suppose Dr. Liccione or another RC apologist might say "How do you know what the Bible tells you about Christ without an infallible "ecclesial authority?" But I am not too interested in elaborate, abstract ideas of authority, in which one must make apologetic arguments to determine which part of what document under which circumstances constitutes an infallible statement. I want Christ where he promised to be, and he says where he will be in his word. I find him in Baptism, Holy Communion and the preaching of the Gospel. He does not lie, and I believe him.

Still Unsatisfied with Temporal Punishment

Rusty responded to my post over on his blog, becoming hinged.

Rusty says I got Trent wrong, that it says what Fr. Kimel says, that temporal punishment is not an external inflicted punishment:

In other words, this ‘punishment’ should be understood in exactly the way that Fr. Kimel (and the Catechism) explicitly states: not external acts of divine vengeance. So how should it be understood? Well, remember that the Bible teaches that the Husbandman purges the branches in Christ. Also, that God chastises those whom he loves. Corrects those who need correction. So, if we, as Mark Shea advocates, understand ‘temporal punishment’ as the purging, correcting, chastising of God’s people - I think we are closer to the truth of what both Trent and Fr. Kimel are getting at.

Fr. Kimel says that the sin brings with it its own punishment--for instance a drunkard with cirrhosis of the liver (my example, not his). The "punishment" is an effect, and not a punishment in the sense of getting a traffic ticket for speeding. But I don't think that does justice to either Trent, or even Rusty's use of "chastizing" point above, because "chastizing" is another word for punishment, and if punishment is not because we have done something wrong, i.e. "vengence", or "[i]nfliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution" {American Heritage Dictionary, dictionary.com), what is it for? I simply don't see what the difference is between Rusty's point above is, and the idea that God inflicts actual punishments on the penitent. Trent seems to support my view. Here is Trent 14 9 again:

It [the council] teaches furthermore that the liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us.

Remember, according to Trent 14 8, there is no forgiveness without this satisfaction: "And it is in keeping with divine clemency that sins be not thus pardoned us without any satisfaction, lest seizing the occasion and considering sins as trivial and offering insult and affront to the Holy Spirit, we should fall into graver ones." Now, "satisfaction" is a work of penance, which in turn, according to Trent 14 9, is imposed by an agent; God himself, or a priest, or ourselves. The mere fact it is imposed is enough to show that it is not something which is an effect or "sin that brings with it, by divine ordination, its own punishment". In the Middle Ages, when a priest told a penitent he had to go to Jerusalem for penance, this was not sin's own punishment, it was imposed, and it was meant to "restrain from sin, check as it were with a bit, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant in the future; they also remove remnants of sin, and by acts of the opposite virtues destroy habits acquired by evil living". By the same token, Trent specifically states that God also inflicts punishment on the penitent. So, I don't see how Fr. Kimel's "clarification" has much in common with Trent.

Rusty goes on to say:

UL spends the remainder of his post aghast that the Catholic “can have no confidence our sins are forgiven unless and until we have made enough “satisfaction” for our sins.” Of course, he neglects the most important part of the whole of Trent’s treatment of satisfaction, a part which is prominently quoted in the Catechism - that when we enter the very act of penitence, we unite ourselves with His suffering, His supreme satisfaction. That any acts of penance are done through his efficacy won on the Cross. Any purging, any correcting, any straightening is done because we have entered the realm of surrender to Him, He who strengthens us.

Well, if it is true that without satisfaction--good works done to remit the temporal punishment we deserve because of God's justice, our sins are not forgiven, then isn't it true the Catholic can have no real confidence his sins are forgiven? I mean, how much "satisfaction" or "purging" does one have to do before God forgives our sins? Maybe we could remit this punishment with something, say an indulgence. That will soothe the conscience. ;-) (I am only half joking here, because these issues are intimately tied in with the Reformation).

I don't think the "pruning" and "purging" really captures what Trent is saying.

"Satisfaction" and Trent Session 14, section 8 and 9

Over on TWeb, I spotted a post which cited a post that says the doctrine of Purgatory is being "clarified". Now, since I don't subscribe to the RC dogma of papal or magisterial infallibility, I usually see "clarification" as a rewrite of a previous position held by the RCC which they no longer want to defend. In any case, what is being developed is what "temporal punishments" we have to make "satisfaction" for. Now, in RC theology, when the priest absolves you, the eternal consequences of your sin are done away with, but the temporal punishments remain. So, I may lie about my neighbor, repent and be forgiven, but I will still be punished for the sin I committed, maybe because I was cought lying, or my neighbor had his reputation damaged etc. But Fr. Kimel writes

The language of punishment is retained, yet note the insistence that this "must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin." It is sin that brings with it, by divine ordination, its own punishment.

Unfortunately, this seems to contradict Trent Session 14, section 8:

[T]he holy council declares that it is absolutely false and contrary to the word of God, that the guilt is never remitted by the Lord without the entire punishment being remitted also. For clear and outstanding examples are found in the sacred writings, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is refuted in the plainest manner. Indeed the nature of divine justice seems to demand that those who through ignorance have sinned before baptism be received into grace in one manner, and in another those who, after having been liberated from the servitude of sin and of the devil, and after having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not feared knowingly to violate the temple of God and to grieve the Holy Spirit. And it is in keeping with divine clemency that sins be not thus pardoned us without any satisfaction, lest seizing the occasion and considering sins as trivial and offering insult and affront to the Holy Spirit, we should fall into graver ones, For without doubt, these satisfactions greatly restrain from sin, check as it were with a bit, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant in the future; they also remove remnants of sin, and by acts of the opposite virtues destroy habits acquired by evil living. Neither was there ever in the Church of God any way held more certain to ward off impending chastisement by the Lord than that men perform with true sorrow of mind these works of penance. Add to this, that while we by making satisfaction suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus who satisfied for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency, having thence also a most certain pledge, that Neither is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins so our own as not to be through Christ Jesus; for we who can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of Him who strengthens us....

It [the council] teaches furthermore that the liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us

(Trent 14,8, 9--emph. added)

Now, at first I thought "Hey!, they are saying that God forgives the sin and the punishment! Well, tat is not so bad." But then I re-read the passage and realized it says just the opposite, it does not say God forgives our sins and our punishment, it says that unless we make satisfaction, i.e. are punished, our sins are not forgiven. Not only that, it seems to me that, contrary to Fr. Kimel's claims about the "development" of this doctrine, the council clearly calls the "effects" punishments. i.e. they are not "accidents of sin" as it were, but punishments inflicted by God, or ourselves. But the worst part of this is that we can have no confidence our sins are forgiven unless and until we have made enough "satisfaction" for our sins. Who can know when he has made enough satisfaction? Perhaps the RC will say that what ever the priest/bishop etc. say is satisfaction, satisfies. I, however, like when Pr. Nuss says "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!" And it is so. The Roman system, even if "temporal punishment" has "developed" to mean the effects of sin, will tend to put our focus on ourselves or the satisfaction imposed by the priest. The Lutheran and Apostolic doctrine is that our sins are forgiven, because we cannot add to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ on our behalf.