Explanation of Why external imputation (extra nos) is seen as fiction

Explanation of Why external imputation (extra nos) is seen as fiction

But why then is the non-imputation, i.e. the forgivness of sin, not a legal fiction as well? From the Catholic point of view God forgives our sins based on the atoning death of Christ on the cross, right? If the non-imputation can be based on the merit of a sacrifical deed of another without it being a legal fiction, why then can’t the merit of the righteous life of another be credited to our account?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

[B]y sinning a man offends God as stated above (Question 71, Article 5). Now an offense is remitted to anyone, only when the soul of the offender is at peace with the offended. Hence sin is remitted to us, when God is at peace with us, and this peace consists in the love whereby God loves us. Now God’s love, considered on the part of the Divine act, is eternal and unchangeable; whereas, as regards the effect it imprints on us, it is sometimes interrupted, inasmuch as we sometimes fall short of it and once more require it. Now the effect of the Divine love in us, which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace. (Summa Theologica I-II Q.113 a.2)

Forgiveness of sin requires the infusion of grace and agape, whereby the soul of the offender is made to be at peace with God. Sin creates a debt of punishment. If a person is still in sin, then He is still contributing to the debt. That is why God cannot declare him to be debt-free, so long as he is continuing to add to the debt. The person must no longer be contributing to the debt, in order to be forgiven. Hence the requirement of repentance for forgiveness.

When by the grace of God a person repents and receives sanctifying grace and agape, God, by cancelling the debt of punishment for those sins is not merely calling him something he is not. Our debt is something relational, a debt owed to God. He can therefore cancel it, because it is owed to Him. By contrast extra nos imputation of the obedience of Christ involves calling a person righteous while that person remains actually unrighteous, and that is contrary to truth. So what makes the two cases different is that debt is by its very nature relational, whereas righteousness is by its very nature intrinsic. That’s why calling something righteous while it remains unrighteous is contrary to the truth, whereas forgiving someone actually cancels the debt he owes, such that then calling him ‘forgiven’ then corresponds to reality, and is thus not contrary to the truth. 

from comment 157 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/

also here below is a quote from comment 230 found here:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/comment-page-5/#comment-38522

" You wrote:

I simply wanted to demonstrate that some of the early fathers (and not just Chrysostom) did teach justification by faith and imputed righteousness.

Of course the Church Fathers teach justification by faith and imputed righteousness. What they mean by those terms, however, is not what Protestants mean. What they mean is what Catholics have always meant by those terms. To read into them a Protestant conception of the terms is anachronistic and inaccurate.

In the Fathers, the term ‘faith’ in “justification by faith” refers to living faith, i.e. faith informed by the virtue of agape. In that respect, their doctrine of justification of faith is incompatible with the Protestant notion of sola fide. That is why Pope Benedict can, while remaining true to Trent and Orange and the Tradition on justification, affirm justification by faith. See “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.” Moreover, the Church Fathers’ belief that justification is by faith has to be understood sacramentally, because universally they believed that regeneration and living faith come through the sacrament of baptism (see “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”)

Regarding “imputed righteousness,” see the paragraph that begins “First, Catholics believe in imputation” in comment #140 in the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread. Yes the Church Fathers believed in imputed righteousness, as do Catholics. But they did not believe in extra nos imputation. So it would be misleading (not that you were intending to mislead) to point to affirmations in the Fathers of imputation of Christ’s righteousness as if those quotations support the extra nos conception of imputation, because that notion is unheard of in the Church Fathers."

The reference above to  comment 140 ---here is part of it:

First, Catholics believe in imputation. God forgives our sins, and in that sense does not impute our sins. (Rom 4:8) God also imputes righteousness to us (Rom 4:5), by counting as righteousness the living faith He has given us, by which we truly are righteous. From a Catholic point of view, the problem is not imputation per se, but the extra nos conception of imputation, which, from a Catholic point of view makes God out to be either a liar or self-deceived.

Lane claims that the Protestant doctrine of imputation does not assume the list-paradigm. But, here’s why it does. If agape were recognized as the fulfillment of the law, there would be no need for extra nos imputation. God would count us as righteous because we are (by His doing) truly internally righteous. So in this way, the need for extra nos imputation depends on the list-paradigm notion thatagape is not the fulfillment of the law.

also from comment 233: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/comment-page-5/#comment-38522

The question between Protestants and Catholics is not over the legal consequences of sin, or the fact of their resolution, but rather over the manner of their resolution. In both paradigms, the just man is accounted righteous by God. The question is why? Is it because of the imputation of an alien righteousness, or the infusion of an actual righteousness in the form of sanctifying grace, and the rectitude of will that results.

quote  from comment 234

"You wrote:

Chrysostom teaches that this gift of “righteousness” is alien by saying that it comes from God. This gift of righteousness is not worked and earned, as is stated “for you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above”.

That’s exactly what Catholics believe as well. See the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread. The alternative is Pelagianism, that we are saved by a righteousness that comes from ourselves. But we have to be careful not to equivocate on the term ‘alien,’ by treating the claim that the Christian’s righteousness is ‘alien’ in the sense that it is a gift of God through Christ, as though it means that this righteousness remains outside the believer, and is not infused into him such that by this divine gift he instantly and truly becomes actually righteous. A denial of Pelagianism does not entail an extra nosimputation of an alien righteousness. One can deny Pelagianism and still affirm that this divine gift of righteousness is infused at baptism, and thus is not alien in the sense of remaining outside us.

This “righteousness” is not a base righteousness that we improve upon, as if we receive a miniature gift and then after that we turn it into a bigger gift, for Chrysosotom says that not only are we made just (understood in the gifted sense apart from works) but that the righteousness acquired is the “highest righteousness” rather than an initial righteous quality prior to works.

By “highest righteousness” he means divine righteousness, rather than human righteousness. He isn’t saying that we cannot grow in our participation in that divine righteousness, by growing in agape.

Notice that Chrysostom has the idea of being freed from the legal consequences when he says “How, when liable for so great sins, came we to be justified?” – to be justified here is to be not liable to so great sins, no? And also listen to this “For the purpose of His dying was not that He might hold us liable to punishment in condemnation, but that he might do good unto us. For for this cause He both died and rose again, that He might make us righteous” – It is implied, in my opinion, that the phrase “make us righteous” refers to the opposite of being held liable to the punishment in condemnation.

Through the sacrifice of Christ (see “Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement“) not only are our sins forgiven , but we are also made righteous by the infusion of agape. (See the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread, and “St. Augustine on Law and Grace.”)

We know from Chrysostom’s writing on Romans 5:12 the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ create a typological parrallel. Adam’s sin brought guilt upon the world and the sacrifice of Jesus has brought justification of the world. Chrysostom on 2 Cor 5:21 does not believe “the righteousness of God” is not referring to the behavior or habit of being righteous, but the quality of being righteous. This is what he means when he says ‘make us righteous’.

That’s a bit too quick. Yes, “make us righteousness” refers to more than a habit, because an infused habit would not be sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. For those who have sinned, forgiveness of sin is necessary in order to have the quality of righteousness. But from what St. Chrysostom says elsewhere (including what David quoted above), “make us righteous” also includes the infusion ofagape, by which the believer is disposed to love God in his behavior and keep His commands."

On this same thread--comment 236:

You wrote:

I want to prove that Chrysostom rejects this idea, explicitly. In other words, one must do much re-constructing of Chrysostom in order to plant a catholic compatibility. … Rather, Chrysostom, rejecting the behavioral understanding of “righteousness” or the habitual understanding of “righteousness”, teaches that the quality itself of being righteous (a completed gift which comes from outside of us) comes to us as a quality that we own.

The problem with your argument is that what you appeal to (“the quality of being righteousness comes to us as a quality that we own”) as showing that St. Chrysostom’s position is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, is something that Catholic doctrine embraces. Your argument presupposes that the only way we can “own” a righteousness that comes from above is either by a behavioral disposition or by extra nos imputation. Since St. Chrysostom says “for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself,” therefore you conclude that the righteousness we own must be by extra nos imputation. But that conclusion does not follow, because there is a third alternative (i.e. the Catholic alternative). The quality of righteousness is by the forgiveness of sins and the gift of infused agape, which is more than a behavioral habit; it is an infused participation in the righteousness of God. By the infusion of agapeat baptism, the believer is instantly made righteous with the righteousness of God. Agape is not a natural or merely human habit; it is a supernatural gift, a share in God’s own Life.

Either way, however, Christ was not made habitually a sinner or behaviorally a sinner NOT EVEN internally sinful, but the guilt of sin remained something outside of himself and yet it brings him to death because He stands in our place, do you see?

In the same way, by gifting us with the righteousness of God, this is not to be understood as our becoming “habitually righteous” or “behaviorally righteous” but rather the quality of being righteous, something that remains outside of us and stay on us (Rom 3:22) in so far that we believe and continue to believe.

Nothing St. Chrysostom says entails that the righteousness we receive “remains outside of us.” And what he says in many other places shows that for him, in baptism we died to sin, and no longer live in it, but live to righteousness. (See the St. Chrysostom section in “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”) In no place does he teach that the believer receives righteousness and yet goes on living in sin."

from 406  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/03/jason-stellman-tells-his-conversion-story/

answering questions:

I am a sinner who needs an alien righteousness if I have any chance of ever standing before God’s throne.

If you think God is incapable of making you righteous now, then what reason do you have for thinking He will acquire the ability to do so in the future? (Or do you think you will you be unrighteous eternally, always under the cover of an alien righteousness?)

No offense, but the Roman scheme is no salve to a sin-plagued soul.

On the contrary, that’s exactly what it is, the removal (not just the hiding, but the actual removal) of sin from the soul, and the infusion of the divine agape which is Christ’s righteousness.

It puts way too much power in the arbitrary decisions of a Roman pontiff (who if he has the power to get people out of purgatory with indulgences should — if he were really loving — just let them go anyway).

That’s a dangerous thing for a Calvinist to say, because since Calvinists believe in monergism and irresistible grace, such a claim entails that if God were “really loving” He would save everyone. And since Calvinists deny that God saves everyone, such a claim entails that God is not “really loving.” (A.W. Pink comes quite close to admitting this, as Jerry Walls shows.)

But regarding the pope, he does not have the power per se to “get people out of purgatory.” He has authority (as steward) over the administration of the sacraments, and thus through the sacrament of penance to grant indulgences to the faithful, who can, through charity and the communion of the saints, apply the *temporal* benefit they have received to souls in purgatory.

impute or reckon--a study of the word:http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/

also on the church fathers and the Pharisees who believed they were righteous http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/imputation-and-infusion-a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-jr/
 

summary of ot and nt

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/

Anyone who reads the Old Testament finds that the Jews are unable to live up to the just demands of the law, which eventually seems pretty much externalized when not completely ignored, if one believes the major and minor prophets. The Law appears to be rote movements or habits as opposed to a desire to know the living God or to do positive good. Even so, Paul tells us that the law is good without regard to our ability to respond to it properly.

So the question becomes, what is needed for us to live up to the just demands of the law, or to respond properly to our Lord? How would God make it so that we could serve Him in spirit and truth? I found that to be a huge item, most of which I believe has been handled under various posts at this site, so at best from me, a very short response.

God builds a sequence in the Old Testament. He starts with a family (Adam and Eve). He extends it to a clan (Abraham), a people (Israel), and a nation (David, including kingship). He sets up sacrifice, thank and sin offerings (altars, the Passover, and the Temple in Jerusalem).

Finally He extends this to the whole world. The kingdom of Israel is fulfilled in the Church which is a supranational body. The sacrifice, thank and sin offerings are fulfilled in Jesus, Who is the King and the High Priest Who has His temples are all over the world. What Jesus offers is Himself, to God the Father and to us. In particular He offers us Himself in the sacraments through Which He extends His grace to us so that we might respond properly to Him and one another.

We are imperfect, however nature is perfected by grace, and Jesus is grace par excellence. I am hungry for God, and find myself trying (with at least some success) to imitate Him in my dealings with the people I meet. When I fail, I go to confession, another of the sacraments He has given us when He told the apostles, “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.” Note the YOU that proceeds forgiven. Jesus is working through His Church, using His intermediaries to do His will for my benefit. That is His call to make, not mine. I have given up telling Him what He can and cannot do, since it is not my place to limit Him; rather it is my place to trust and obey Him, and I need the sacraments to do that.

future sins forgiven? how

 from comment 90 here:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/

One problem with claiming that “he has perfected” [τετελείωκεν] in Heb 10:14 means that believers’future sins are all already forgiven is that in Heb 7:25 the author had already written, “He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” If their sins had already been forgiven at the cross, then there would be no more reason to continue to make intercession for them. But the fact that He continues to make intercession for us indicates that at the moment of justification, it is not the case that all our future sins have already been forgiven. And this implies that we should not assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that believers’ future sins are all already forgiven.

Another good reason to believe that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 does not mean that believers’ futuresins are all already forgiven is that the author says in 10:29, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Unless you think that a person can be sanctified without being justified, then the persons being referred to here in 10:29 are justified. And yet they are told that if they they “go on sinning willfully” (Heb 10:26), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Heb 10:26-27) Yet, if all their future sins had already been forgiven, then there could not possibly be any reason to expect judgment and the fury of fire for those sins. In other words, Heb 10:29 makes no sense if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven.

Similarly, the author goes on to say, “But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” (Heb 10:38) A righteous person who is living by faith, is, necessarily, someone who has been justified. But if God has already forgiven all this righteous person’s future sins, then God has already forgiven him for shrinking back. But if God has already forgiven him for shrinking back, then God cannot cease to take pleasure in him for shrinking back. So, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then Heb 10:38 makes no sense. Likewise in Heb 12:25, the author writes, “For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.” Here too, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then there is no possibility of needing to escape from divine wrath and punishment. So here too, treating the τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 as if it means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, turns Heb 12:25 into misleading fear-mongering. “Oh Paul [assuming Pauline authorship], come on, we see through your deceptive warnings; they don’t fool us, because you already told us in Heb 10:14 that our future sins are all already forgiven. So, just lay off all these silly warnings of divine fury and fire and wrath and not escaping. Go take a logic course, and get a coherent theology, for goodness’ sake.”

A much more coherent explanation of all this data, is one that comports with what St. John says in his first epistle: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9) St. John is writing to and about believers. No Christian avoids all [venial] sin, at least not in this present life. This is why we still need to “confess our sins” so that He will “forgive us our sins.” If all our future sins were already forgiven, then after coming to faith there would be no need to continue to confess our sins and ask Christ to forgive us our sins. But the Church Fathers universally advocated the daily praying of the Lord’s Prayer, and hence that all Christians daily petition Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This explanation also makes sense of all the warning passages in Hebrews, genuine warnings even to those who are presently justified. To assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 must include the forgiveness of future sins, and use that assumption not only to assume that 1 John 1:8-9 must be talking about non-Christians, but also to undermine all the warning passages in Hebrews and to conclude that the whole entire early Church must have been misled or deceived in believing that we must daily confess our sins and ask for their forgiveness, would, in my opinion, be presumptuous and unjustified.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

st augustine on circumcision

St. Augustine on circumcision

But in the case of those [i.e. Gentiles] who had no such training, but were brought to Christ, the corner-stone, from the opposite wall of circumcision, there was no obligation to adopt Jewish customs. If, indeed, like Timothy, they chose to accommodate themselves to the views of those of the circumcision who were still wedded to their old sacraments, they were free to do so. But if they supposed that their hope and salvation depended on these works of the law, they were warned against them as a fatal danger. So the apostle says: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;” (Galatians 5:2) that is, if they were circumcised, as they were intending to be, in compliance with some corrupt teachers, who told them that without these works of the law they could not be saved. For when, chiefly through the preaching of the Apostle Paul, the Gentiles were coming to the faith of Christ, as it was proper that they should come, without being burdened with Jewish observances — for those who were grown up were deterred from the faith by fear of ceremonies to which they were not accustomed, especially of circumcision; and if they who had not been trained from their birth to such observances had been made proselytes in the usual way, it would have implied that the coming of Christ still required to be predicted as a future event — when, then, the Gentiles were admitted without these ceremonies, those of the circumcision who believed, not understanding why the Gentiles were not required to adopt their customs, nor why they themselves were still allowed to retain them, began to disturb the Church with carnal contentions, because the Gentiles were admitted into the people of God without being made proselytes in the usual way by circumcision and the other legal observances. Some also of the converted Gentiles were bent on these ceremonies, from fear of the Jews among whom they lived. Against these Gentiles the Apostle Paul often wrote, and when Peter was carried away by their hypocrisy, he corrected him with a brotherly rebuke. (Galatians 2:14) Afterwards, when the apostles met in council, decreed that these works of the law were not obligatory in the case of the Gentiles, (Acts 15:6-11) some Christians of the circumcision were displeased, because they failed to understand that these observances were permissible only in those who had been trained in them before the revelation of faith, to bring to a close the prophetic life in those who were engaged in it before the prophecy was fulfilled, lest by a compulsory abandonment it should seem to be condemned rather than closed; while to lay these things on the Gentiles would imply either that they were not instituted to prefigure Christ, or that Christ was still to be prefigured. The ancient people of God, before Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, were required to observe all these things by which Christ was prefigured. It was freedom to those who understood the meaning of the observance, but it was bondage to those who did not. But the people in those latter times who come to believe in Christ as having already come, and suffered, and risen, in the case of those whom this faith found trained to those sacraments, are neither required to observe them, nor prohibited from doing so; while there is a prohibition in the case of those who were not bound by the ties of custom, or by any necessity, to accommodate themselves to the practice of others, so that it might become manifest that these things were instituted to prefigure Christ, and that after His coming they were to cease, because the promises had been fulfilled. Some believers of the circumcision who did not understand this were displeased with this tolerant arrangement which the Holy Spirit effected through the apostles, and stubbornly insisted on the Gentiles becoming Jews. These are the people of whom Faustus speaks under the name of Symmachians or Nazareans. Their number is now very small, but the sect still continues. (Contra Faustum, Bk 19, para. 17)

found in comment 33 here 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/

confession of sin/st Augustine and other stuff

St. Augustine on forgiveness of sins

 Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, regarding the article “the forgiveness of sins”, he writes:

“Forgiveness of sins.” You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. Let none say, “I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me.” What have you done? How great a sin have you done? Name any heinous thing you have committed, heavy, horrible, which you shudder even to think of: have done what you will: have you killed Christ? There is not than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.

In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, “Our Father,” who are not yet born sons? (, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed)

from comment 14 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/

"  From another book (Pardon and Peace: A Sinner's Guide to Confession) I'm reading I was consoled to discover that there are a whole bunch of 70's kids who were never properly guided through the process of examining one's conscience...generally and daily.  I found this entry especially helpful and I hope you will too.

14.3 The Examination. How to do it. Contrition and resolutions.
The purpose of the examination of conscience is to get to know ourselves better, in order to become more receptive to the graces the Holy Spirit pours out upon us, and to grow to resemble Christ himself.

The question to ask ourselves which will perhaps give us the most light of all is:  On what have I set my heart? What takes up the most room in it? Is it Christ? At the very moment of putting this question, the answer comes within me.  This question causes me to cast a rapid glance into the innermost centre of my being, and I at once see the salient points;  I give ear to the tone echoed by my soul, and immediately catch the dominant note.  It is an intuitive proceeding, and is quite instantaneous... It is a glance... Sometimes I shall see that my dominant disposition is the want of approval or praise, or the fear of reproach.  Sometimes, the bitterness that springs from some annoyance, from some harmful project or proceeding, or else the resentment caused by some remonstrance.  Sometimes, the pain of being under suspicion, or the trouble felt through some aversion.  Or, it may be the slackness induced by sensuality, or the discouragement resulting from difficulties or failure.  At other times routine, the product of carelessness, or frivolity, the product of idle curiosity and empty gaiety, etc.  Or else, on the contrary, it may be the love of God, the desire for sacrifice, the fervour kindled by some touch of grace, full submission to God, the joy of humility, etc.  Whether it be good or bad, it is the main and dominant disposition that must be ascertained; for we must look at the good as well as the evil, since it is the state of the heart that it is important to know.  I must go directly to the mainspring which sets all the wheel  of the clock in motion. (J. Tissot)

When we are examining our consciences our aim is to discover whether that day we have fulfilled the will of God and carried out what was expected of us, or whether we have followed our own will.  And then we should come down to specific details of our behaviour towards God; of how we have fulfilled our duties towards him in our plan of life, in our work, in our relationships with other people.  Let us examine how much determination we have put into struggling against our tendencies to love of comfort and to the creation of imaginary necessities for ourselves.  Let us look at how much effort we have made, for example, to lead a life which even on social occasions is sober and temperate in eating and drinking, and in the use of earthly goods.  We have to see if we have fulled the day which has just passed with the love of God, or if, unhappily, we have let it remain epty for all eternity (something that will not happen if we allow ourselves to be helped by grace), or if it has been defiled by sin.  It is like a miniature judgement to which we submit ourselves beforehand.

We will detect some things which need to be borne in mind for our next Confession.  We must always finish with an act of contrition, because if there is no repentance the examination will have been useless.  we should make some small resolution, which we can renew at the beginning of the next day, either in our morning offering, in our personal prayer, or in the Holy Mass.  And finally we should give thanks to Our Lord for all the good things which He has given us that day. a'-Francis Fernandez

also a good article on confession here  http://lifeteen.com/my-side-of-the-confessional-what-is-it-like-for-a-priest/



Below is from comment 397      here:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This statement is in the present tense. As Jesus said, “It is finished.” On the other hand, the Catholic Church teaches that there is in fact condemnation that remains for those who are in Christ Jesus… and that this condemnation can only be removed by: participation in the sacraments, acts of good works, penance and the fire of purgatory, etc.

Of course the Catholic Church also affirms this verse (Rom 8:1). But ‘condemnation’ refers to the condemnation of eternal damnation, not to temporal punishment. St. Paul isn’t saying there (in Rom 8:1) that everyone who is in Christ has no debt of temporal punishment. Again, you’re reading the term ‘condemnation’ through a Protestant lens, and thus begging the question. (And, the Protestant has the burden of proof, for the reasons I explained in comment #18 of the “Some Thoughts Concerning Michael Horton’s Three Recent Articles” thread, and in the very last paragraph of the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post.)

You wrote:

The Scripture I read says we were chosen for salvation before the beginning of time, and nothing can snatch us from the hand of the Father. Our sins past, present and future are already forgiven.

Except, in your view, for the sin of idolatry. Right? Regarding John 10:28-29, again, the Catholic Church affirms these verses. But the Church has never interpreted these passages to mean that a regenerated person can never lose his justification, or can fail to be saved, through mortal sin. Scripture repeatedly teaches the genuine possibility of apostasy unto damnation. See the second part of comment #13 in the “Justification: The Catholic Church and the Judaizers in St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” post.

What you are imposing on the text (of John 10:28-29) is the assumption that all the regenerate are elect-to-glory. The fact that none of the elect-to-glory can be lost does not mean that “you” are one of the elect-to-glory, as you presume when you say “The Scripture I read says we were chosen for salvation before the beginning of time, and nothing can snatch us from the hand of the Father.” Just to be clear, I’m not saying that you are not one of the elect-to-glory; from a Catholic point of view, we do not know whether we are elect-to-glory, unless we receive some kind of personal supernatural revelation [i.e. an angel appears and informs Joe that Joe is elect-to-glory].

Nor does Scripture anywhere teach that a believer’s “present and future” sins have already been forgiven. Nor does any Church Father teach that. Rather, we pray daily in the Lord’s Prayer, “forgive us our trespasses,” which would be pointless if all our sins were already forgiven. See “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer.”

You wrote:

This implies that the work of Christ is not finished… that there is an ongoing sacrifice at each celebration of the Eucharist. What happened to “once for all”?

You assume that “once for all” is incompatible with anything soteriological ongoing. The problem with that assumption is that it would require Hebrews 7:25 to be ripped out of the Bible. To the fact of Christ’s ongoing intercession one could say, “What happened to once for all?” So the problem is in the assumption you are bringing to the text. What is finished is finished; and what is ongoing is ongoing. The fact that something is finished does not entail that everything is finished, and that nothing is ongoing.

So, to answer your question, while I believe John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned…”, the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

The Catholic Church teaches otherwise than your interpretation, because you assume a Reformed conception of ‘condemnation,’ namely, as including both temporal punishment for past sins and including the punishment of all present and future sins. But the Catholic Church does not teach contrary to the authentic interpretation of Scripture, according to which ‘condemnation’ refers to eternal damnation.

I would fall in the camp of supra scriptura… that all other ecclesial information must agree with the writings of Scripture in its entirety. We all agree that Scripture is divinely inspired. Therefore, all ecclesial matters must agree with Scripture to pass the “truth test”.

As a Catholic, I fully agree with that, if by “agree with” you mean be compatible with. In that sense all of the Church’s teaching agree with the writings of Scripture. (But they may not agree with “your interpretation” of Scripture.) However, there is a Protestant-Catholic disagreement regarding the authority of Tradition, as I explained in the “Scripture and Tradition section of my reply to Horton.

I am responsible for my own account. I can’t draw on the Church Fathers, or tradition or other ecclesial writing. I am responsible for my response to God’s revelation through Scripture.

It is one thing to assume that the works of other persons make my own unnecessary. It is quite another to recognize that the authority and insights of others can help me follow Christ correctly, and that to ignore or disdain them purposefully is to make myself culpable for the errors I commit in my resulting ignorance, and for disobeying Christ by disobeying the authorities He established. So I agree with you that I am responsible for my response to God, in the sense that I cannot assume that the obedience or merit of the Church Fathers makes my own obedience unnecessary. But insofar as you are suggesting that our responsibility for our own choices means that we cannot learn from the teachings of the Church Fathers, or cannot follow Christ by following the successors of the Apostles, then I completely disagree. That would be like a first century Christian saying “Because I’m responsible for my choices, I cannot trust the Apostles’ teaching regarding Christ and how to follow Christ.” On the contrary, because I will have to give an account for my actions, if I ignore the teaching of those whom Christ and the Apostles authorized, I will have to give an account for ignoring them and in pride leaning instead on my own understanding and my own interpretation rather than humbly submitting to those whom Christ authorized to shepherd His Church until He returns.

Because we are individually responsible, we must individually discern God’s Word and respond to it.

That’s an egregious non sequitur. Nor did Jesus agree with your conclusion, because He appointed Apostles. Moreover, the error of the individualism (“solo scriptura”) position you are seemingly advocating is laid out very clearly in Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura. (And, he’s a Protestant, as I think you already know.)

Regarding the ecclesial deism article you wrote:

Perhaps the Reformation was the way God preserved the Church

I addressed that in the article. The period of time to which I am referring in the article is the 1,500 years preceding the Reformation.

You wrote:

Perhaps God is active today in all Christians churches. Perhaps God is bigger than one organization. There is only one Christ. All whom He has chosen will believe in Him … Priests, Popes and Protestants … will be saved. So says Scripture. It is interesting to me that so many of the contributors here came to Christ through Protestant churches. Jesus said, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” Maybe Protestants are just the stones.

I surely agree that God is active in all Christian communities, and that He is “bigger” than one organization, and that there is only “one Christ.” Nevertheless, there is also only “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” which Christ founded, and to which all Christians should be joined in full communion. The fact that God is active everywhere does not justify being in schism from the Church Christ founded.

from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-6/  below

He observes that baptized persons who fall into mortal sin and then receive the sacrament of penance, are given some penance to do. According to the objection, this implies that Christ’s work was not sufficient to pay their debt of punishment, because no one whose debt is already paid should be made to pay anything additional. Aquinas then replies:

As stated above (1, ad 4,5), in order to secure the effects of Christ’s Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Romans 6:4: “For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death.” Hence no punishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism, since they are fully delivered by Christ’s satisfaction. But because, as it is written (1 Peter 3:18), “Christ died” but “once for our sins,” therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ’s death by the sacrament of Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of Christ’s satisfaction, much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin.⁴¹

Here Aquinas explains that in order to secure [consequamur] the effects of Christ’s Passion, it is necessary that we be configured [configurari] to Him. And we are configured to Him sacramentally in Baptism, because in Baptism we are buried together with Him into His death, as the Apostle Paul teaches. Therefore there is no punishment of satisfaction imposed on men at their baptism, because through Christ’s satisfaction, all the punishment for their sin until that time, is canceled by their union with Christ in baptism. But since Christ died but once for sins, therefore we cannot be configured to Him by being baptized again. So those who sin after baptism must be configured to Christ suffering, by some form of temporal punishment [poenalitatis] or suffering [passionis] which they themselves endure. Yet, explains Aquinas, by the cooperation of Christ’s satisfaction [cooperante satisfactione Christi], this penance that penitents must do is much lighter than is deserved for their [post-baptismal] sins. So for Aquinas the requirement of doing penance for post-baptismal sin is not due to Christ’s satisfaction being insufficient, but rather because since Christ died only once, we cannot be baptized again as a remedy for post-baptismal sins, and so must be configured to Him by sharing in His suffering.

from  http://catholichome.webs.com/faq.htm

Are All of Our Sins - Past, Present and Future- Forgiven Once We Become Christians?

A.  Not according to the Bible or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt. 6:12).

The means by which God forgives sins after baptism is confession: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.

This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).

Since it is not possible to confess all of our many daily faults, we know that sacramental reconciliation is required only for grave or mortal sins—but it is required, or Christ would not have commanded it.

Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done "in church," as the Didache (A.D. 70) indicates.

Penances also tended to be performed before rather than after absolution, and they were much more strict than those of today (ten years’ penance for abortion, for example, was common in the early Church).

But the basics of the sacrament have always been there, as the following quotations reveal. Of special significance is their recognition that confession and absolution must be received by a sinner before receiving Holy Communion, for "[w]hoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).  

The Didache
"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).  

The Letter of Barnabas
"You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8). 

Irenaeus
"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]). 

Tertullian
"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]). 

Hippolytus
"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]). 

Origen
"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]). 

Cyprian of Carthage"The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him" (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).

"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (ibid., 28).

"[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]" (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).

"And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given" (ibid., 51[55]:20).

"But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]" (ibid., 51[55]:22). 

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).  

Basil the Great
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles" (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).

John Chrysostom
"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]). 

Ambrose of Milan
"For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only" (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]). 

Jerome
"If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him" (Commentary on Ecclesiastes10:11 [A.D. 388]). 

Augustine"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]). 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

death penalty and capital punishment

http://www.saintaquinas.com/controversial.html

''The Death Penalty and Capital Punishment

Interestingly, this is probably the one Church teaching that is the most confusing to Catholics.This is perhaps due to Pope John Paul II’s seeming request for an end to capital punishment.However, it has always been the teaching of the Church that the death penalty can be used in matters of grave circumstances by a legitimate public authority:

"Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm.For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of

the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity,the death penalty... (CCC 2266)."

Many Catholics who oppose the death penalty labor under the false assumption that the Church has absolutely condemned capital punishment.This is technically false, however Pope John Paul II has taught that in modern times the use of the death penalty is often motivated by the victim’s (and societies) desire for revenge.The death penalty should be considered viable in only the most extreme circumstances because it removes or limits the offender’s chance for conversion and penitence.Only when the public good is at immediate risk should the offender be removed entirely from society.The pope explains in Evangelium Vitae:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent (56).

The Church’s teaching has not changed, but rather modern society and technology has rendered the use of capital punishment an extremely rare measure.''

what are dogmas? how differ from disciplines

quote from here:http://www.saintaquinas.com/controversial.html

''Before I address the Church’s teaching on matter of faith and morals I’d like to explain the role of dogma in the Catholic faith.For anyone who professes to be Catholic, their faith requires them to believe certain teachings with “divine and Catholic faith”.No amount of personal opinion, “conscientious objection”, or personal desires can excuse them from acting contrary to a defined dogma of the Catholic Church.Certain dogmas such as Christ’s resurrection, the Trinity of God, redemption of sin, belief in heaven and hell and other such dogmas are regarded as pillars of the faith.These teachings cannot be abandoned without simultaneously abandoning the Catholic faith.The church exists to teach men the truth and aid them in attaining salvation through the graces given by Christ’s death and resurrection.Dogmatic teachings are absolutely needed by the faithful so that they can attain salvation.The need for dogmatic teachings is necessary because without them the faithful do not know what is required to gain everlasting life.That is why the Church has the right and the duty to define what we are required to believe in matters of faith and morals.In fact, faith is defined as “the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe in all that he has said and revealed to us, and that HolyChurch proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself (CCC 1814).”When faith is united with the gifts of hope and charity wrought by the redemption of Christ, faith enlivens our soul and gives us spiritual life.Make no mistake, Catholics “do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch (CCC 170).” “Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother (CCC 168).”As our mother, we ought to respect and obey the Church.

There is one more fundamental point on Church teachings that confuse many Catholics.Many Catholics believe that some traditions such as the celibacy of the priesthood, use of liturgical vestments, Lenten requirements, and other disciplines are dogmas of the Church that cannot be changed.Such things are not dogmas but disciplines that can be changed by the Church to suite the needs of the faithful.Changing these things will not compromise the Faith because they are not of the faith by necessity.If the Catholic Church wanted, she could allow priests to marry (which does occur in the Eastern rite of the Church) or wear common clothes while saying mass or even eliminate the season of Lent.The fact that the Church rarely alters her disciplinary traditions shows us that these traditions are beneficial and have been proven to be proper and pious by the test of time.So how do we distinguish dogmas from disciplinary teachings?Dogmas and definitions of faith and morals are explicitly promulgated by a Church Ecumenical Council convened or endorsed by the pope (such as the Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, and Vatican Council II) or by a pope in an encyclical letter.Yet, not all statements given by a council or a pope are considered dogmatic decrees.Only those statements which fulfill the following three conditions:

1)The decree is intended for belief by all the Church’s faithful

2)The decree is related to a matter of faith and morals

3)The decree comes from the pope when exercising his teaching authority as head of the Church or by a general Church council endorsed by the pope

Dogmas are not new teachings added to the beliefs of the Church; rather they are refinements and clarifications of Church Traditions taught by Christ and the twelve apostles.Dogmas, Traditional teachings, and Sacred Scripture form the Deposit of Faith and constitute the faith of the Church.Explicit doctrines from the Deposit of Faith can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

With a proper understanding of the role of Church teachings and practices, we can now properly address the Church’s stance on various matters of faith and morals.''

see also http://www.readability.com/articles/kljm9mwc

I think part of the problem is when the church calls something sin and then changes the regulation. ie--no eating for 12 hours or whatever before mass, to one hour before the Eucharist---perhaps this is similar to the veil a woman wears in the New Testament. As culture changes the discipline is changed --and what is important is the heart seeing things as holy?

a listing of dogmas http://catho.org/9.php?d=g1  note need to translate