The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all", thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."
[from CCC 294 note -beatitude means supreme blessedness]
Friday, November 23, 2012
indulgences
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
What an indulgence is
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:
- In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences here
how to get:http://liturgicalyear.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/plenary-indulgence-for-the-year-of-faith/
see also comment 10 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/#comment-47567 below:
In a post published yesterday and titled “The Treasury of the Church – “A Satanic Mockery”,” R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California quotes the following paragraph from John Calvin’s Institutes, regarding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences:
Now these, to describe them rightly, are a profanation of the blood of Christ, a Satanic mockery, to lead the Christian people away from God’s grace, away from the life that is in Christ, and turn them aside from the true way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more foully profaned than when they deny that it is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, for reconciliation, for satisfaction—unless the lack of it, as of something dried up and exhausted, be otherwise supplied and filled? “To Christ, the Law and all the Prophets bear witness,” says Peter, that “through him we are to receive forgiveness of sins.” [Acts 10:43 p.] Indulgences bestow forgiveness of sins through Peter, Paul, and the martyrs. “The blood of Christ cleanses us from sin,” says John [1 John 1:7 p.]. Indulgences make the blood of martyrs the cleansing of sins. “Christ,” says Paul, “who knew no sin, was made sin for us” (that is, satisfaction of sin) “so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” [2 Corinthians 5:21 p., cf. Vg.]. Indulgences lodge satisfaction of sins in the blood of martyrs. Paul proclaimed and testified to the Corinthians that Christ alone was crucified and died for them [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:13]. Indulgences declare: “Paul and others died for us.” Elsewhere Paul says, “Christ acquired the church with his own blood.” [Acts 20:28 p.] Indulgences establish another purchase price in the blood of martyrs. “By a single offering Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” [Hebrews 10:14.] Indulgences proclaim: Sanctification, otherwise insufficient, is perfected by the martyrs. John says that “all the saints have washed their robes… in the blood of the Lamb.” [Revelation 7:14.] Indulgences teach that they wash their robes in the blood of the saints. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.5.3)
When we peel back his rhetoric, Calvin’s argument in this paragraph goes like this:
(1) The merits of the saints can have a role in the forgiveness of sins only if Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for the forgiveness of sins.
(2) The notion that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient profanes Christ’s sacrifice.
(3) Scripture teaches that forgiveness of sins is through Christ’s sacrifice.
(4) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences makes the blood of martyrs the cleansing of sins.
Therefore,
(5) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences profanes Christ’s sacrifice. [from (1) and (2)]
(6) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences is contrary to Scripture. [from (3) and (4)]
(2) The notion that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient profanes Christ’s sacrifice.
(3) Scripture teaches that forgiveness of sins is through Christ’s sacrifice.
(4) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences makes the blood of martyrs the cleansing of sins.
Therefore,
(5) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences profanes Christ’s sacrifice. [from (1) and (2)]
(6) The Catholic doctrine of indulgences is contrary to Scripture. [from (3) and (4)]
In light of the content of the post above, we can see how Calvin’s argument is misguided in four ways, and thereby sets up an oversimplified straw man of the Catholic doctrine concerning indulgences.
First, indulgences are not for the forgiveness of the guilt of sins, but for the reduction or removal of the debt of temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. Calvin’s argument conflates the distinction between guilt and debt, and this allows him to imply that the Catholic doctrine makes the sacrifices of the saints equivalent to the sacrifice of Christ.
Second, Calvin’s argument conflates the distinction between eternal debt and temporal debt, and thus obscures the Catholic teaching that only Christ’s sacrifice removes our eternal debt, again allowing him to imply falsely that the Catholic doctrine makes the sacrifices of the saints equivalent to the sacrifice of Christ.
Third, he mistakenly assumes that the only possible basis for the saints having a role in [the reduction of temporal punishment] is Christ’s sacrifice being insufficient. He thereby overlooks the possibility that (a) the saints having this role is not on account of an insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice but precisely through Christ’s sacrifice and (b) is a gift of love to the Church, by giving to her members the great gift and dignity of participating in His redemptive work and its application to others, so that the horizontal dimension of love within the Body is both from Him, and truly from us by participation, and eternally meaningful.
Fourth, he assumes that if Scripture teaches that forgiveness of sins is through Christ’s sacrifice, then the notion that the sacrifices of the saints have any role in [the reduction of temporal punishment] is contrary to Scripture. But that conclusion does not follow. In Catholic doctrine the merits of the saints are themselves participations in Christ’s merit, and their sufferings are participations in His sufferings. Without Christ’s Passions and merit, there would be no saints, and their sacrifices would not be meritorious or of any supernatural benefit to themselves or anyone else. So for this reason the role of the saints in the reduction of temporal punishment for others in the Body of Christ is not contrary to Scripture’s teaching that forgiveness of sins is through Christ’s sacrifice. Nowhere in Scripture does it state or state anything entailing that Christ’s sacrifice eliminates the possibility that the sacrifices and merits of the saints participating in Christ’s sacrifice and merit can contribute to the reduction of the debt of temporal punishment for other members of the Body of Christ.
The fact that we bring happiness and joy to each other through our acts of charity does not entail that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for our happiness and joy, but is by Christ’s gracious gift a genuine participation in the communication of His happiness and joy to His Body. So likewise, the reduction of temporal punishments through the merits and prayers of the saints does not entail that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for the elimination of temporal punishment, but is by Christ’s gracious gift a provision by which the saints genuinely participate in the communication of His merits, such that their participations in Christ’s sacrifice and merits are also within the benefits communicated to the Body of Christ, by which temporal punishment is reduced and removed.
end
also here http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm
see also: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/#twofold
This link has many explanations here is one:
Here St. Thomas draws upon a previous distinction between operating grace and and co-operating grace, which is a distinction St. Augustine makes in his work titled On Grace and Free Will.18 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.
from comment 15
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/#comment-47567
from comment 16
Temporal punishment for sin is not the same thing as the temporal consequences of sin. Temporal punishment is the temporal punishment due to oneself for one’s own sins. But the temporal consequences of sin are the result of Adam’s sin, not one’s own sins. Hence in John 9, when Jesus’s disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” His being born blind was a temporal consequence of sin (i.e. the loss to mankind of the preternatural gifts, including the gift of impassibility), but it was not temporal punishment for his own sins. Nevertheless, by offering our sufferings to God in a state of grace, we can reduce the debt of temporal punishment we owe for the sins we have committed after our baptism.
see also http://pontifications.wordpress.com/purgatory/ or http://www.readability.com/articles/b1ylfiec
more from catholic answers --not sure how accurate--this is from the comment section on temporal punishment http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=223213
An indulgence is not granted "freely." An indulgence is granted by virtue of the penance/good works one has done. To illustrate, in the early Church, a certain punishment was attached to a certain sin. The greatest punishment for a Christian was deprivation of communion (i.e., participation in the Eucharist). In the early Church, the temporal punishment of deprivation of communion was determined by the severity of the sin - anywhere from 3 years to 20 years up to even a lifetime (e.g., the sin of heresy resulted in deprivation of communion until the moment of death!!!).
By virtue of the power of the keys, bishops had the authority to lessen this temporal punishment. This occurred because of evidence of true contrition, which was determined by your good works or penance. That was known, as it is now, as an indulgence.
So indulgence does not remove temporal punishment (or penance). Indulgence is granted BECAUSE there is already evidence that temporal satisfaction has taken place.
This was the way of it in the early Church, and that is the way of it in the Catholic Church today.
from comment 10 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/called-to-communion-welcomes-jason-stellman/#comment-61595
“First of all, in no place in the official teaching of the church is an “indulgence” defined as “time off purgatory” (and despite the way the title is written, that’s not a quote from anyone in the Vatican).
An “indulgence” is a recognition that holiness (devotion, acts of charity and piety, all stemming from genuine faith in the context of the confession of sins and receiving the eucharist and prayer) can function to mitigate and undo the “temporal punishments” that sinful wrongdoing, both acts and desires, can cause.
“Temporal punishments”, in Catholic teaching, are not something imposed extrinsically by God as a kind of vengeance on wrongdoing. Rather they they are natural effects and consequences of sin. That’s to say, doing wrong and disordered desires have a ripple effect in our lives and in the world that is detrimental to and diminishes and damages the person doing the wrong as well as those around him or her.
On Catholic teaching, because of the overflowing grace of God in Jesus Christ, all those who are united to Christ by faith will find that even their imperfect attempts to live holy lives are taken up by the Spirit to begin to mitigate and undo the effects of wrongdoing in ways that extend beyond the effects of sin. And since we are all united to one another in the Body of Christ, in the same way my sin can negatively affect others, so also the holiness of others can repair and transform the negative effects of my sin.
(Think, for instance, of how two estranged people forgiving one another and being reconciled can have a beneficial effect that overflows and extends beyond the original hurt and estrangement, transforming the situation and bringing benefit to others.)
An “indulgence” then is a way that the Catholic church advertises – underlines and celebrates – that a particular event or devotion or time of holiness and prayer is, in its judgment, a place where, if engaged in with the right intentions, the consequences of sin can be healed and rolled back, brokenness can be restored.
So, World Youth Day, says the Vatican, is one of those events, assuming that people participate in it with the appropriate devotion, and within a larger context of confession of sin, sacramental reconciliation, participation in the eucharist, prayer, and so on.
Moreover, the Vatican adds, for those who, for legitimate reasons, are unable to travel to Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day, the spiritual benefits and “desired fruits of sanctification” that flow from participation in it can still be enjoyed through the use of social media (including, but not limited to, Twitter). This assumes that the person follows the entire event online (and not just via Twitter), with proper devotion, participating as much as possible in the proceedings (e.g., praying along with the prayers, singing along with the songs), always again in a context of appropriate devotion, and so on.
(And, surely, we don’t want to say that technology is, in itself, intrinsically, a barrier to the possibility of grace.)
One might still reject the notion of purgatory, the way Catholicism conceives of “temporal punishment”, or the church’s ability to quantify and dispense how holiness will undo the consequences of sin.
But what the Vatican actually stated isn’t just patently absurd in the way that the newspaper story makes it sound.”
also here http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm
| Indulgences - General Conditions |
| The traditional norm for going to confession, receiving Holy Communion, and praying for the intentions of the pope, in order to gain a plenary indulgence, was 8 days before or after doing the prescribed work (counting the day of the work). In the Great Jubilee Year 2000, the Apostolic Penitentiary relaxed this norm to "several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act" (Gift of the Indulgence, General remarks, 5). The question often arises whether this norm of about 20 days applied only to the Great Jubilee Year Indulgence, or whether it remains in effect. In an answer to a question posed by this author, the Apostolic Penitentiary responded that this norm of "about 20 days" remains in effect, since it was contained under the "General remarks on indulgences," and not under those specific to the Jubilee Indulgence. The following "General remarks on Indulgences" from Gift of the Indulgencesummarizes, therefore, the usual conditions given in the Church's law: 1. This is how an indulgence is defined in the Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints". 2. In general, the gaining of indulgences requires certain prescribed conditions(below, nn. 3, 4), and the performance of certain prescribed works ..... [N.B. The grants of indulgence are contained in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (4th ed., 1999), in special grants of the Holy See, such as for the Year of the Holy Eucharist, and in special grants which bishops may establish for their dioceses.] 3. To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed. [N.B. Thus, one must be a Catholic in communion with the Pope, i.e. not excommunicated or in schism.] 4. A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace: —have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin; —have sacramentally confessed their sins; —receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required); —pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. 5. It is appropriate, but not necessary, that the sacramental Confession and especially Holy Communion and the prayer for the Pope's intentions take place on the same day that the indulgenced work is performed; but it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act. Prayer for the Pope's intentions is left to the choice of the faithful, but an "Our Father" and a "Hail Mary" are suggested. One sacramental Confession suffices for several plenary indulgences, but a separate Holy Communion and a separate prayer for the Holy Father's intentions are required for each plenary indulgence. 6. For the sake of those legitimately impeded, confessors can commute both the work prescribed and the conditions required (except, obviously, detachment from even venial sin). 7. Indulgences can always be applied either to oneself or to the souls of the deceased, but they cannot be applied to other persons living on earth. |
This link has many explanations here is one:
Here St. Thomas draws upon a previous distinction between operating grace and and co-operating grace, which is a distinction St. Augustine makes in his work titled On Grace and Free Will.18 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.
from comment 15
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/#comment-47567
But, if he is fully God, the Word made flesh, Himself infinite and eternal, holy and separate from every created nature in his native Divine nature as one with the Father, made man by taking human nature into his eternal, infinite and holy Divine Person, then nothing can be added to the sufficiency of his “sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.”
True. However, participation in is not addition to. It is important to grasp this paradigm difference. The Catholic paradigm includes the notion of “participation in” as secondary causes in the order of grace, much as, in the natural order everything lives, moves, and has its being in God who is the source of all being, without either deism or occasionalism being true. That is, occasionalism is false. God is not the only cause. He is the First Cause, but He has given to creatures the dignity of being genuine secondary causes (contra occasionalism) which act within and according to the movement of the First Cause (contra deism). In the Protestant paradigm, by contrast, this sense of participation is absent in the order of grace. And that leads Protestants to see any notion of participation (in the Catholic paradigm) in the order of grace as adding to the work of Christ, and thus denying the sufficiency of the work of Christ, as I explained in the second-to-last paragraph of comment #182 of the “Church Fathers on Transubstantiation” thread.
......So you see Bryan, to teach that we need indulgences and time in purgatory is to deny Christ’s divinity, because it assumes his work on the cross was not perfect and that therefore he was not truly God in the flesh.
Or, it teaches that Christ’s work was *so* perfect that it allows saints truly to participate in it, for the edification of the Body, because Christ is not jealous, not even in His work of redemption, and does not take to Himself the sole causality of the salvation of the world, but generously shares that causality with His Body, through the merits He gained in His Passion and Death, as I explained in the St. Thomas Aquinas section of “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory.” The concept of “perfection” according to which Christ does it all Himself, is the question-begging concept in your claim.
How do you deal with the scripture phrases that teach that God therefore imputes no iniquity to us, just as if we had never sinned? If we still have a temporal punishment due to sin then obviosuly God is still imputing our sins to us.
That is addressed in comment #15 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread.
from the catechism:
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. 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.”
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.”22
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.
from comment 8
But, in the horizontal dimension of penance, we will (either in this life or also in purgatory) complete the amount of penance that is justly due for all our horizontal (human-to-creature) acts contrary to justice, unless we receive an indulgence. Murder is a mortal sin because in the vertical dimension it turns away from God, and thus gives offense to Him, incurring a debt of eternal punishment. But in the horizontal dimension, no act (not even murder) incurs a debt of eternal punishment. So a murderer who has been absolved (and thus had his guilt and debt of eternal punishment removed), will pay the last penny (either in this life and/or in purgatory) of his debt of temporal punishment for that murder.
from comment 16
Temporal punishment for sin is not the same thing as the temporal consequences of sin. Temporal punishment is the temporal punishment due to oneself for one’s own sins. But the temporal consequences of sin are the result of Adam’s sin, not one’s own sins. Hence in John 9, when Jesus’s disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” His being born blind was a temporal consequence of sin (i.e. the loss to mankind of the preternatural gifts, including the gift of impassibility), but it was not temporal punishment for his own sins. Nevertheless, by offering our sufferings to God in a state of grace, we can reduce the debt of temporal punishment we owe for the sins we have committed after our baptism.
see also http://www.readability.com/articles/5disehlu or http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm
from comment 18 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/01/indulgences-the-treasury-of-merit-and-the-communion-of-saints/
A document that might be helpful towards further understanding the ecclesial norms pertaining to indulgences is the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina. The first part of the document deals with general principles. Towards the end of the document, the Pope issues twenty “norms” pertaining to indulgences. Another useful document is the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which specifies further “norms and grants” regarding indulgences.
and
Performing an indulgenced work should have the consequence of fixing our will away from our sins and entirely on God. This is why among the most important of the conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence, and the hardest to satisfy, is the complete detachment or detestation of our sins. By detesting our sins we orient our will away from creatures (to the degree we love them inordinately), towards God. In this way we open our will to the action of His mercy flowing into our souls, which alone is able to effect the complete remission of the temporal punishment to our sins.
An example will perhaps better illustrate these points. A boy playing ball breaks a window of his home. Contrite and sorrowful he goes to his father, who forgives him. However, despite the forgiveness the window is still broken and must be repaired. Since the boy's personal resources are insufficient to pay for a new window, the father requires him to pay a few dollars from his savings and forego some of his allowance for several weeks, but that he, the father, will pay the rest. This balances justice and mercy (generous love). To ask the boy to do nothing, when it is possible for him to make some reparation, would not be in accordance with the truth, or even the boy's good. Yet, even this temporal debt is beyond the boy's possibilities. Therefore, from his own treasury the father generously makes up what the child cannot provide. This is indulgence. Unlike the theologies that say "we are washed it the blood of the Lamb and there is nothing left to do," Catholic teaching respects the natural order of justice, as Jesus clearly did in the Gospels, yet recognizes that man cannot foresee or undo all the temporal consequences of his sin. However, God in His mercy will satisfy justice for what we cannot repair.
from catholic answers a person commenting http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=223213
First, remember that indulgences require detachment from sin. When we obtain an indulgencec, we have to make a personal choice that we do not want to sin anymore. Thus, in the very act of gaining oneself an indulgence, we are making the very choice that we need to. Remember that all of our spiritual progress is accomplished by God's Grace. When we make a choice to detach from sn to gain an indulgence, we are opening up the door for God so that He might come in and act on us.
Second, indulgences can be understood not as some sort of juridical pardon, but as the application of the prayers of the saints to us. Now it would make perfect sense to you, I am sure, to conceive of improving in our detachment by way of the prayers of the saints and of others. How this works we don't really know, do we? How is it that when I pray for you to overcome a sin, you make progress in that? We just don't know. It's a mystery that God alone knows. This never causes us that much of a problem when we think about it this way, and it's really the same thing when thinking about indulgences. However my prayer helps my cousin Steve to grow in holiness, so too does the merit applied to him by virtue of an indulgence.
see also http://pontifications.wordpress.com/purgatory/ or http://www.readability.com/articles/b1ylfiec
this above link explains that " The temporal punishment of sin is the sanctification and healing of the sinner. Sin distorts and corrupts the human being, attaching the will to lesser goods. While God forgives the offense of sin through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in his justice he also requires the repentance, conversion, and healing of the sinner. The disorder of sin within the human heart must be rooted out, and because this sanctifying transformation involves suffering, it is metaphorically described as punishment:
Now, because actual sin offends God’s majesty, damages the Church, and distorts the divine image stamped on the soul—especially if the sin is mortal, although venial sin will tend to do the same; and because offense calls for punishment, damage for repair, and distortion for purification: therefore this penalty must be justly punitive, duly reparative, and properly cleansing.
Suffering is both the instrument and consequence of our sanctification. Just as the addict must experience, and indeed embrace, terrible pain in the process of withdrawing himself from his drugs, so the sinner suffers pain and distress as he detaches himself from bondage to worldly goods. When viewed from the perspective of God and his justice, how else can this suffering be understood except as “punishment.” But the punishment is not primarily or exclusively retributive: its purpose is the sanctification and perfection of the sinner. The punitive dimension of purgatorial suffering must be interpreted through its medicinal purpose. The person is truly being “punished” for his own good—to heal the disorder of his heart and liberate him completely from the power of sin. The language of “punishment” in this context should therefore be recognized as a form of figurative speech. The torment individuals suffer in Purgatory varies, Bonaventure explains, “according as they took with them from their earthly life more or less of what must be burned away. … The more deeply a man has loved the things of the world in the inner core of his heart, the harder it will be for him to be cleansed.” With Augustine and Caesarius of Arles, Bonaventure affirms that the sufferings of Purgatory exceed the sufferings of our present life, but “because those who are being cleansed possess grace which now they cannot lose, they neither can nor will be completely immersed in sorrow, or fall into despair, or be moved to blaspheme.” Two hundred years laterSt Catherine of Genoa would remind the Church that though the sufferings of the poor souls may be great, their joy and happiness is greater still: “No happiness can be found worthy to be compared with that of a soul in Purgatory except that of the saints in Paradise; and day by day this happiness grows as God flows into these souls, more and more as the hindrance to His entrance is consumed.”
.............
The sufferings of Purgatory are punitive precisely as medicinal, sanctifying, and transformative. They effectively cleanse the soul and render it fit for glory. ...........................
Purgatory therefore must be seen as an expression of the divine goodness. God wills only the good of his creatures. In his infinite love, he purifies, sanctifies, and liberates sinners that they might perfectly enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision; in his infinite justice he refuses to allow evil to retain even the tiniest foothold within the souls destined for glory. As George MacDonald astutely observes, “There is no heaven with a little of hell in it.”
[go to the article to see more on this--I have also quoted parts in the post on purgatory---now I will quote parts that deal with indulgences--but it is best to go to the article itself]
Once it becomes clear that the temporal punishment of sin is not a punishment externally imposed by God but rather is identical to the deleterious effects of sin upon the sinner, then it becomes clear that indulgences, for example, can no longer be understood as a mechanical removal of sanction or the cancellation of debt. Indulgences are perhaps better understood as an ecclesial form of intercession within the communion of saints:
To obtain an indulgence is to invoke, with the authority of the Church, the prayers and merits of the saints for the sanctification of oneself and others; it is to participate in the mystical co-inherence of the body of Christ. The mystery of indulgence is the mystery of communion with the saints and martyrs. Indulgences express the deep intuition of the Church that the prayers and works of others may assist us in our conversion to God and that our prayers and works may assist others in their conversion to God. In a transcendent web of exchange we share each other’s burdens and gifts. The vicarious involvement of the saints in the process of sanctification is beautifully stated in John Paul’s Jubilee Bull, Incarnationis Mysterium:The Church has a treasury, then, which is “dispensed” as it were through indulgences. This “distribution” should not be understood as a sort of automatic transfer, as if we were speaking of “things.” It is instead the expression of the Church’s full confidence of being heard by the Father when—in view of Christ’s merits and, by his gift, those of Our Lady and the saints—she asks him to mitigate or cancel the painful aspect of punishment by fostering its medicinal aspect through other channels of grace. In the unfathomable mystery of divine wisdom, this gift of intercession can also benefit the faithful departed, who receive its fruits in a way appropriate to their condition.
Revelation also teaches that the Christian is not alone on the path of conversion. In Christ and through Christ, his life is linked by a mysterious bond to the lives of all other Christians in the supernatural union of the Mystical Body. This establishes among the faithful a marvellous exchange of spiritual gifts, in virtue of which the holiness of one benefits others in a way far exceeding the harm which the sin of one has inflicted upon others. There are people who leave in their wake a surfeit of love, of suffering borne well, of purity and truth, which involves and sustains others. This is the reality of “vicariousness”, upon which the entire mystery of Christ is founded. His superabundant love saves us all. Yet it is part of the grandeur of Christ’s love not to leave us in the condition of passive recipients, but to draw us into his saving work and, in particular, into his Passion. This is said in the famous passage of the Letter to the Colossians: “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church” (1:24).
more from catholic answers --not sure how accurate--this is from the comment section on temporal punishment http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=223213
An indulgence is not granted "freely." An indulgence is granted by virtue of the penance/good works one has done. To illustrate, in the early Church, a certain punishment was attached to a certain sin. The greatest punishment for a Christian was deprivation of communion (i.e., participation in the Eucharist). In the early Church, the temporal punishment of deprivation of communion was determined by the severity of the sin - anywhere from 3 years to 20 years up to even a lifetime (e.g., the sin of heresy resulted in deprivation of communion until the moment of death!!!).
By virtue of the power of the keys, bishops had the authority to lessen this temporal punishment. This occurred because of evidence of true contrition, which was determined by your good works or penance. That was known, as it is now, as an indulgence.
So indulgence does not remove temporal punishment (or penance). Indulgence is granted BECAUSE there is already evidence that temporal satisfaction has taken place.
This was the way of it in the early Church, and that is the way of it in the Catholic Church today.
from comment 10 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/called-to-communion-welcomes-jason-stellman/#comment-61595
“First of all, in no place in the official teaching of the church is an “indulgence” defined as “time off purgatory” (and despite the way the title is written, that’s not a quote from anyone in the Vatican).
An “indulgence” is a recognition that holiness (devotion, acts of charity and piety, all stemming from genuine faith in the context of the confession of sins and receiving the eucharist and prayer) can function to mitigate and undo the “temporal punishments” that sinful wrongdoing, both acts and desires, can cause.
“Temporal punishments”, in Catholic teaching, are not something imposed extrinsically by God as a kind of vengeance on wrongdoing. Rather they they are natural effects and consequences of sin. That’s to say, doing wrong and disordered desires have a ripple effect in our lives and in the world that is detrimental to and diminishes and damages the person doing the wrong as well as those around him or her.
On Catholic teaching, because of the overflowing grace of God in Jesus Christ, all those who are united to Christ by faith will find that even their imperfect attempts to live holy lives are taken up by the Spirit to begin to mitigate and undo the effects of wrongdoing in ways that extend beyond the effects of sin. And since we are all united to one another in the Body of Christ, in the same way my sin can negatively affect others, so also the holiness of others can repair and transform the negative effects of my sin.
(Think, for instance, of how two estranged people forgiving one another and being reconciled can have a beneficial effect that overflows and extends beyond the original hurt and estrangement, transforming the situation and bringing benefit to others.)
An “indulgence” then is a way that the Catholic church advertises – underlines and celebrates – that a particular event or devotion or time of holiness and prayer is, in its judgment, a place where, if engaged in with the right intentions, the consequences of sin can be healed and rolled back, brokenness can be restored.
So, World Youth Day, says the Vatican, is one of those events, assuming that people participate in it with the appropriate devotion, and within a larger context of confession of sin, sacramental reconciliation, participation in the eucharist, prayer, and so on.
Moreover, the Vatican adds, for those who, for legitimate reasons, are unable to travel to Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day, the spiritual benefits and “desired fruits of sanctification” that flow from participation in it can still be enjoyed through the use of social media (including, but not limited to, Twitter). This assumes that the person follows the entire event online (and not just via Twitter), with proper devotion, participating as much as possible in the proceedings (e.g., praying along with the prayers, singing along with the songs), always again in a context of appropriate devotion, and so on.
(And, surely, we don’t want to say that technology is, in itself, intrinsically, a barrier to the possibility of grace.)
One might still reject the notion of purgatory, the way Catholicism conceives of “temporal punishment”, or the church’s ability to quantify and dispense how holiness will undo the consequences of sin.
But what the Vatican actually stated isn’t just patently absurd in the way that the newspaper story makes it sound.”
Atonement/forgiveness/Mass/salvation/temporal punishment
Quote below from here. http://bfhu.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/atonement-salvation-temporal-punishment-for-sin/
" I would like to ask you about the Atonement and forgiveness, the Mass, Salvation and temporal punishment.
The Catholic view of the Atonement is that when Jesus died on the cross of Calvary he died for the Eternal puinishment of Sin. So when A Catholic sins either Mortally or Venially and then repents and goes to a Catholic priest for the sacrament of penance and gets Absolution he is let off the Eternal puinishment of his Sins BUT he has to work off OR Expiate the Temporal Punishment of his sins by Prayers and indulgences and if he does not work the temporal punishment off in his/her lifetime then he/she will have to expiate them in Purgatory.
I have described these Catholic beliefs to Protestants, Anglicans and Eastern orthodox Christians and they think that it is a Load of HOG WASH.
They do not believe in temporal puinishment or in a Fire-Purgatory where sins that have been absolved in confession are punished and paid for in Purgatory or in this life.
BFHU: It may not be actual fire but something signified by the pain of fire.
They all believe that when jesus died on the Cross he died for ALL OUR SINS and all the punishment due for them.
Catholicism seems to them a SAD RELIGION because you have to spend most of your life avoiding sin and then when you sin you have to worry about expiating or working off the temporal punishment for your sins and if you do not do it during your lifetime then YOU GET NAILED IN PURGATORY!!!!
BFHU: All a very small price to pay for an Eternity in Heaven. This life is very short by comparison. We can have an easy life for 80 years but then as Jesus said, “you will have received your reward” I’ll take my reward in Heaven. Thank you very much.
Then there is Salvation. Most evangelical protestant believe in ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. JUSTIFICATION is a once for all declaration of forgiveness FOLLOWED BY SANCTIFICATION and then INSTANTANEOUS GLORIFICATION AFTER DEATH.
Catholics on the other hand believe that Salvation is a process begun in Baptism and strengthened by the GRACES OF THE SACRAMENTS, prayer, holiness and good works as well as ongoing repentance.
Then at death there is the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT and then either heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
Then at death there is the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT and then either heaven, Purgatory or Hell.
The Mass also plays an important role in the Salvation of the living and the dead in the intermediate state of Purgatory.
It is a true, proper real and PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE ( I.E. SIN FORGIVING SACRIFICE ) Which benefits the living and the dead.
It is a true, proper real and PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE ( I.E. SIN FORGIVING SACRIFICE ) Which benefits the living and the dead.
Each mass is getting the Catholic closer to Heaven and then there will be many Masses said after his/her death also for his/her eternal salvation.
To Protestants this all complicates things as they believe that all their sins are forgiven by Christ once for all sacrifice and that they are SAVED and will go to Heaven when they die.
BFHU: Many of them don’t even think it is important to examine their consciences either.
Traditional Catholicism would say that Salvation has different tenses in the New testament in that WE WERE SAVED when Christ died for us on the cross PAST TENSE. Then we are also being saved, PRESENT TENSE, OR in a state of Salvation by being members of his body the Church. We were called to this state of salvation when we were baptised and we will be saved FUTURE TENSE after the final judgement IF WE HAVE WALKED WORTHY OF OUR CALLING."
then here http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences ---
Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven
When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2)."
[another example of temporal punishment
[another example of temporal punishment
Dt. 27:12-14:
12: The LORD said to Moses, "Go up into this mountain of Ab'arim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. 13: And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, 14: because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes." (These are the waters of Mer'ibah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)]
More from Catholic.com from the source linked above:
Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.
Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."
Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.
An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.
Protestants--do they believe in temporal punishment? or why do Christians die if Christ's righteousness has been imputed?
here http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/why-do-christians-die/
In question and answer 42, the Heidelberg Catechism considers why Christians die. It is a logical place to address the issue because questions 37–41 deal with Christ’s death for His people in order to bear the wrath of God in their place (Rom. 3:21–26; 1 Peter 2:24–25). Those for whom Jesus did not suffer — those who remain impenitent — endure physical death as one part of the divine wrath they must suffer for their sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). This cannot be the case for believers, for Christ has been cursed in our place (Gal. 3:10–14). Why, then, do believers die?
There are many answers to this question. First, while the penalty for the sin of Christians has been paid, the Lord has not yet removed the presence and effects of sin from creation. Creation is groaning, waiting for the adoption of God’s children, which will be plain to all when our bodies are raised from the grave (Rom. 8:18–23). The full benefits of Christ’s work will not be consummated until He returns to bring the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21). We will suffer the results of sin until then, but we should be glad God did not wrap up His plan two thousand years ago. If He had done so, you and I would never have existed or seen His glorious grace.
Our deaths, as the Heidelberg Catechism states, do not pay the debt for our sins. Instead, they mark the point at which we enter directly into the presence of Christ (Phil. 1:21–23). The death of Christians is holy and precious to God. When we die, He receives us into heaven, where we rest before Him until the final resurrection."
Westminster:
"Q. 85. Death being the wages of sin, why are not the righteous delivered from death, seeing all their sins are forgiven in Christ?
A. The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it; so that, although they die, yet it is out of God’s love, to free them perfectly from sin and misery, and to make them capable of further communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon." end of quote.
Perhaps another example of Temporal punishment:
Hebrews 12:5-17:
5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --"My son,do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished [ ἐλέγχω elegchō ]by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for theholiness [ἁγιασμός hagiasmos ] without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; 16 that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.
meaning of ἐλέγχω elegchō
to chasten, to punish
to chasten, to punish
meaning of ἁγιασμός hagiasmos
1) consecration, purification
2) the effect of consecration
a) sanctification of heart and life
1) consecration, purification
2) the effect of consecration
a) sanctification of heart and life
[found this here:http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4476611&postcount=35
also here from comment 16 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/st-thomas-aquinas-on-penance/#twofold
Temporal punishment for sin is not the same thing as the temporal consequences of sin. Temporal punishment is the temporal punishment due to oneself for one’s own sins. But the temporal consequences of sin are the result of Adam’s sin, not one’s own sins. Hence in John 9, when Jesus’s disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” His being born blind was a temporal consequence of sin (i.e. the loss to mankind of the preternatural gifts, including the gift of impassibility), but it was not temporal punishment for his own sins. Nevertheless, by offering our sufferings to God in a state of grace, we can reduce the debt of temporal punishment we owe for the sins we have committed after our baptism.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Monergism/yes or no?
Monergism this is from a comment 52 here : http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-39984 ----
I had asserted that your criticism of Catholic soteriology assumes “monergism,” and thus begs the question. To that, you replied: “That also assumes that monergism and “effectivity” leaves anyone with no choice but final salvation.” That reply misses the mark.My assertion was not an assumption, but an inference from (a) what you say and (b) the definition of monergism. The Wikipedia definition is pretty good: “Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual.” So if you hold that God “effectively” saves us without the cooperation of our free will–and that is what you hold–you’re a monergist. Nor, I notice, do you deny you’re a monergist.In fact, you reaffirm monergism. As a Catholic, I had written that our salvation comes about when:…our own power of free choice is enabled, by God’s unmerited communication of his own nature, to choose as God wills within us, and thus to partake of the divine nature. Being finally saved, therefore, does not displace our freedom but restores it–if we would but have it so.To that, you reply:We coaxed the system with so many words but in the final analysis -IF WE WOULD BUT HAVE IT SO-the grace of God is ineffective and does not save anyone.You seem to take for granted that it is not God who saves us if we have any choice in the matter. Salvation must therefore be monergistic if it is to be salvation at all. But that assumption is unwarranted.God saved humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If those had not happened, none of us would be able to please God by any means, including free choices, because everybody would remain enslaved to sin. But because it has happened, we all have the opportunity to be grafted, as it were, onto Christ, and thus be liberated from sin to participate in his divine goodness. That it remains up to us to stay in Christ or not, that we can grow in holiness or fall away if we choose, does nothing to change that. When a person chooses to stay in Christ, it is God who continues transforming them into a sharer in his nature, which is supremely free. So, while it is God who does the work of salvation all the way through, that work does not displace our freedom, or our activity in general, but transforms and strengthens them.and there is this post here that has over 400 comments that discuss the subject http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/
also some aspects about God' s glory: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/draft-soli-deo-gloria-a-catholic-perspective/
an interesting comment 21 from the post http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/
John Thayer Jensen: Maybe what is bothering me is the idea of synergism itself. Maybe I’m just a pantheist in theist’s clothing :-)It seems to me that either one is saying that God can do it all, but I am allowedactually to do a little bit, or else that God can’t do it all and needs my help.Whereas in fact it seems to me that what I do I do and if I didn’t – it wouldn’t be done. At the same time, it seems to me that I cannot do anything except in God.
How about a third possibility? God can’t do it all, and God doesn’t need our help, since God is in need of nothing.
First, why do I say God can’t do it all? I say this because God cannot contradict God. God, by a sovereign act of his will, has deigned to make human beings as creatures with free will. Our free will isessential to our nature, and without it, we can’t be human beings. If God were to “save” us by forcing upon us some kind of “irresistible” grace that destroyed our free will, then we would cease to be creatures with free will. That kind of “irresistible” grace would utterly annihilate the human being that God created, and what was “saved” after the annihilation wrought by irresistible grace would not be a human being at all, but merely the shell of a human being. Therefore, God can’t force a human to choose union with God without destroying what he has chosen to create. It isn’t that the omnipotent God lacks the power to force us to choose union with God, rather, it is that such an exercise of that omnipotent power would create a contradiction within God that is irreconcilable with what God has chosen to do, namely, God chooses to save human beings as beings as human beings. And that means an adult that has reached the age of reason has to exercise his free will to choose union with God over alienation from God in order to be saved. But how can a man that is born in bondage to sin, make a free choice for union with God? IOW, how does the Catholic Church avoid the heresy of semi-Pelagianism? If the fallen man could make a choice for God out of his will power alone, then he isn’t really in any sort of bondage to sin. The Catholic Church avoids the heresy of semi-Pelagianism by rejecting the false either/or false dichotomy of either monergism or synergism. Salvation is a both/and process, both monergism and synergism.
The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V directly addresses the question of the actual graces that must be received by an adult before he chooses to become justified through the Sacrament of Baptism:
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”
The Council here is teaching that there are two kinds of actual grace that must be received by fallen man before he can make a free choice for reconciliation with God through the Sacraments of Initiation. First, he must receive the actual grace of prevenient grace that enlightens his understanding, and that grace is received without any merit on the part of man. This is a monergistic movement by God – God deigns, by a sovereign act of his will, to give fallen man enlightenment, an enlightenment that allows man to understand that he is in need of justification and conversion. After the man has been enlightened by prevenient grace, he receives the actual grace of quickening and assisting grace, and this actual grace gives enough healing to man’s wounded nature that he can now cooperate with God in his conversion and movement towards justification. Quickening and assisting grace can be resisted, and, ultimately, it can be rejected – or – this actual grace can be accepted, and by cooperation with this grace, a man can move towards reception of the sanctifying grace bestowed by the Sacraments of Initiation. This is cooperation with quickening and assisting grace is synergistic – the man can’t move in this grace unless he has this grace, yet at the same time, this grace is not irresistible, since he can exercise his free will to reject this grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)