"When comes the evening of life, I shall stand before Thee with empty hands,
because I do not ask Thee, My God, to take account of my works. All our works of
justice are blemished in Thine Eyes. I wish therefore to be robed with Thine own Justice, and to receive from Thy Love the everlasting gift of Thyself. I desire no other Throne, no other Crown but Thee, O my Beloved?" - St. Therese of Lisieux
Remember that Justice means Righteousness in Catholicism. So this makes the 2nd Doctor of the Church that has taught something akin to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Kind of odd as I thought that was anathema'd at Trent, but I'm sure there's a way around that.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux too emphasizes justification by Christ's righteousness not our own, but he does not use the robing/cloaking image here utilized by St. Therese. I know Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Cardinal Pole, and some other famous Augustinians shared these views. If there was a way to hold them, and still remain Catholic it would be very comforting. It would be nice if we could even read the doctors of the church without reaching what would later be defined as heretical.
Lord have mercy...
If anyone knows our way of getting round these quotes, please let me know. I sure would like Christ's righteousness, but if Peter has declared against it, then I have to submit.
Showing posts with label Soteriology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soteriology. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Protestantism, Catholicism, and Justification (for old time's sake)
So I know I promised to shut up about this a while back, but I just thought it was interesting that Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ (God rest his soul) stated that the problem with Protestant-Catholic ecumenism wasn't necessarily their beliefs on Justification as much as it was their worry about the issue of justification at all.
For Protestants Justification is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, because Justification causes the Church to exist. For Catholics Ecclessiology is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, because it is the doctrine about the Church itself. Our starting points are so different that it's no wonder we get to different conclusions.
Personally I think all the scripture is a red herring, as the NPP has pretty much raped Luther's exegesis. And as the "New" perspective on Paul is just the Old Catholic perspective, we've pretty much gone full circle. The real issue like I've said, is where you start, which doctrine is most important, and epistemology (How do you know what is true?)
Catholicism starts with Metaphysics for it's epistemology - Aristotle/Aquinas - which is the worst of all sins to the Reformers. Reformers start with Ockham and Fideism.
It's two different languages, two different gospels, two different histories.
It reminds me of the category for divorce, "irreconcilable differences".
For Protestants Justification is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, because Justification causes the Church to exist. For Catholics Ecclessiology is the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, because it is the doctrine about the Church itself. Our starting points are so different that it's no wonder we get to different conclusions.
Personally I think all the scripture is a red herring, as the NPP has pretty much raped Luther's exegesis. And as the "New" perspective on Paul is just the Old Catholic perspective, we've pretty much gone full circle. The real issue like I've said, is where you start, which doctrine is most important, and epistemology (How do you know what is true?)
Catholicism starts with Metaphysics for it's epistemology - Aristotle/Aquinas - which is the worst of all sins to the Reformers. Reformers start with Ockham and Fideism.
It's two different languages, two different gospels, two different histories.
It reminds me of the category for divorce, "irreconcilable differences".
Saturday, November 28, 2009
What Happened To Me Today.
I posted 2 things earlier today, one was basically a declaration that Trent seemed to be against not only scripture, but also what Cardinal Pole, and the Spirituali taught, as well as noting others in the Catholic Church who have dissented like Blaise Pascal, and more recently Peter Kreeft and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who all officially submitted to Trent, but in their private lives basically espoused Lutheran soteriology. I don't know enough about the issues in question on the Catholic side of justification to say anything with certainty. I know more than anything what the Lutheran/Reformed position is, and I know that Trent condemned that in some ways, but I am hard pressed to come up with a very detailed analysis of the soteriology of Rome beyond (what I consider) the basics.
I was considering never going back to Rome this morning, I was thinking about never confessing my sins again to a living human, and being free with just Christ. I don't want to make the story a polemic either Lutheran or Catholic. I'm just going to say what happened.
So as I considered more and more the magnitude of my sins and the hopelessness of any regeneration within me, I began to consider Lutheranism more and more. I was (and am) writing a paper on Catholic and Lutheran soteriology for history and so I went to the library and picked up some books on it. I decided I should go to confession but I was an hour early so I sat in St. Alexander's parking lot for an hour reading Martin Marty's biography of Luther.
I was reading the parts about confession and feeling that nagging doubt about Catholicism greater than I'd ever felt since my conversion. I considered driving away or just not confessing, but I waited. I really thought for some reason, that after my confession the priest would just throw me out (that only happens if you vote pro-choice I think), so I figured it would be soon enough.
But then when I got out of my car, a Catholic friend I had been teaching John's Gospel too in a bible study pulled up. He had brought another one of our co-workers who hadn't been back to confession in over a year. We are kind of the Catholic trinity at our grocery store and all came (back for them) to the Church at the same time.
As I sat there I talked with my friend and told him about my considering Lutheranism etc, and his only words were "but what about Augustine?" hah. I had taught him well I guess.
Then I confessed and the priest said some interesting things. When I asked him how I could stand before a just God and be saved, he basically said that we can't be declared perfect, and it's only through Christ's grace that we can be declared as such. I don't know if that was unorthodox or really what he meant to say. But it had been the most recent of a string of Catholic writings that I had seen that basically deny the idea that we are made perfect within ourselves by God (ie. without Christ's righteousness).
I can't even describe it except that I knew I was forgiven when he gave the absolution. I felt as if I had been given this immense gift. I had tears in my eyes and I didn't know what this meant. I sat down beside my other friends who had confessed and they looked the exact same.
The verse in our reading today was Jeremiah 23:6 saying that Judah would be called, "the Lord is our righteousness". Perhaps I have joined Peter Kreeft, and Richard J. Neuhaus, I can't explain my theology here (which probably means I'm going to get attacked for it). But I just knew that Christ had satisfied the demands of the law for me, he had acted on my behalf, he had absolved me completely, even though I had no merit or works. He had given me his merit. The only quote I could think of was from St. Bernard:
"But as for me, whatever is lacking in my own resources I appropriate for myself from the heart of the Lord, which overflows with mercy. My merit therefore is the mercy of the Lord. Surely I am not devoid of merit so long as he is not of mercy. And if the Lord abounds in mercy, I too must abound in merits (Psalm 119:156). But would this be my own righteousness? Lord, I will be mindful of your righteousness only. For that is also mine, since God has made you my righteousness." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Song of Songs)
The Eucharist which I could finally take again was a gift. I didn't see it primarily as a sacrifice, just a gift. And I was overwhelmed with love for God. Then I remembered St. Robert Bellarmine "Charity (love) is that with which no man is lost, and that without which no man can be saved". Charity/love had been restored to me.
I'll close with something from one of the men I've mentioned. Fr. R. J. Neuhaus who somehow found the truth of Catholicism and the spirit of the free grace of the gospel of Lutheranism. He writes of the mass:
"[for the Eucharist there is] a palpable yearning for a gift desired, a sigh of gratitude for a gift received. "It" is happening again. It is the Mass that holds together the maddeningly ragtag and variegated thing that is the Catholic Church. Which is to say it is the Presence. Which is to say it is Christ, doing it again, just as he promised."
Gratias Tibi Domine
I was considering never going back to Rome this morning, I was thinking about never confessing my sins again to a living human, and being free with just Christ. I don't want to make the story a polemic either Lutheran or Catholic. I'm just going to say what happened.
So as I considered more and more the magnitude of my sins and the hopelessness of any regeneration within me, I began to consider Lutheranism more and more. I was (and am) writing a paper on Catholic and Lutheran soteriology for history and so I went to the library and picked up some books on it. I decided I should go to confession but I was an hour early so I sat in St. Alexander's parking lot for an hour reading Martin Marty's biography of Luther.
I was reading the parts about confession and feeling that nagging doubt about Catholicism greater than I'd ever felt since my conversion. I considered driving away or just not confessing, but I waited. I really thought for some reason, that after my confession the priest would just throw me out (that only happens if you vote pro-choice I think), so I figured it would be soon enough.
But then when I got out of my car, a Catholic friend I had been teaching John's Gospel too in a bible study pulled up. He had brought another one of our co-workers who hadn't been back to confession in over a year. We are kind of the Catholic trinity at our grocery store and all came (back for them) to the Church at the same time.
As I sat there I talked with my friend and told him about my considering Lutheranism etc, and his only words were "but what about Augustine?" hah. I had taught him well I guess.
Then I confessed and the priest said some interesting things. When I asked him how I could stand before a just God and be saved, he basically said that we can't be declared perfect, and it's only through Christ's grace that we can be declared as such. I don't know if that was unorthodox or really what he meant to say. But it had been the most recent of a string of Catholic writings that I had seen that basically deny the idea that we are made perfect within ourselves by God (ie. without Christ's righteousness).
I can't even describe it except that I knew I was forgiven when he gave the absolution. I felt as if I had been given this immense gift. I had tears in my eyes and I didn't know what this meant. I sat down beside my other friends who had confessed and they looked the exact same.
The verse in our reading today was Jeremiah 23:6 saying that Judah would be called, "the Lord is our righteousness". Perhaps I have joined Peter Kreeft, and Richard J. Neuhaus, I can't explain my theology here (which probably means I'm going to get attacked for it). But I just knew that Christ had satisfied the demands of the law for me, he had acted on my behalf, he had absolved me completely, even though I had no merit or works. He had given me his merit. The only quote I could think of was from St. Bernard:
"But as for me, whatever is lacking in my own resources I appropriate for myself from the heart of the Lord, which overflows with mercy. My merit therefore is the mercy of the Lord. Surely I am not devoid of merit so long as he is not of mercy. And if the Lord abounds in mercy, I too must abound in merits (Psalm 119:156). But would this be my own righteousness? Lord, I will be mindful of your righteousness only. For that is also mine, since God has made you my righteousness." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Song of Songs)
The Eucharist which I could finally take again was a gift. I didn't see it primarily as a sacrifice, just a gift. And I was overwhelmed with love for God. Then I remembered St. Robert Bellarmine "Charity (love) is that with which no man is lost, and that without which no man can be saved". Charity/love had been restored to me.
I'll close with something from one of the men I've mentioned. Fr. R. J. Neuhaus who somehow found the truth of Catholicism and the spirit of the free grace of the gospel of Lutheranism. He writes of the mass:
"[for the Eucharist there is] a palpable yearning for a gift desired, a sigh of gratitude for a gift received. "It" is happening again. It is the Mass that holds together the maddeningly ragtag and variegated thing that is the Catholic Church. Which is to say it is the Presence. Which is to say it is Christ, doing it again, just as he promised."
Gratias Tibi Domine
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tridentine Justification & Neo-Thomism
I understand and believe Catholic/Tridentine soteriology / doctrine of justification, but man is it repellant. I have to write an essay partially on it, and when it sits there next to the Lutheran doctrine it's so painfully bad. Not in the sense of innaccuracy or lack of Patristic support etc, but just sad, difficult, and scary.
When you read things about 'killing grace in your soul' versus 'Christ's free gift of salvation' and the overwhelming mercy of the Lutheran gospel, it sometimes makes you wish you could have all the Ecclessiology and Tradition of Catholicism and just take Lutheran justification... I guess that was the Anglican dream really.
Anyway, while it's easier and easier to read (Trent that is), it still strikes a bad note, it's all the 'worst' parts of Catholicism together.
By contrast I'm reading a book by Etienne Gilson called "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" and it's amazing. Obviously it's on a really different topic, but it's awesome how he describes the scholastics and how attractive he makes the doctrines rejected by the Reformers seem.
I've found out in Thomism too, they traditionally talk in a way about salvation and predestination that leaves little to free will. NOT that they deny it, or that St. Thomas doesn't write about it elsewhere - after all they firmly believe in it. But they err on the side of Grace and predestination rather than the side of free-will and foreknowledge.
They recognize that it's a mystery how free will works with efficacious grace, but they teach it. And that's the great gospel I always need to hear. That even when I'm completely sinful, Christ is still giving me grace, and has chosen me ante praevisa merita / unconditionally.
The one interesting thing I've found is that describing justification in terms of grace, merit, cooperation, etc is more passe now. It seems like after Jansenism the Church got stuck with how it could talk about it. Thus they've gone to the Greek Fathers and are now big on understanding soteriology through Trinitarian theology and participation in the divine nature etc.
When you read things about 'killing grace in your soul' versus 'Christ's free gift of salvation' and the overwhelming mercy of the Lutheran gospel, it sometimes makes you wish you could have all the Ecclessiology and Tradition of Catholicism and just take Lutheran justification... I guess that was the Anglican dream really.
Anyway, while it's easier and easier to read (Trent that is), it still strikes a bad note, it's all the 'worst' parts of Catholicism together.
By contrast I'm reading a book by Etienne Gilson called "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" and it's amazing. Obviously it's on a really different topic, but it's awesome how he describes the scholastics and how attractive he makes the doctrines rejected by the Reformers seem.
I've found out in Thomism too, they traditionally talk in a way about salvation and predestination that leaves little to free will. NOT that they deny it, or that St. Thomas doesn't write about it elsewhere - after all they firmly believe in it. But they err on the side of Grace and predestination rather than the side of free-will and foreknowledge.
They recognize that it's a mystery how free will works with efficacious grace, but they teach it. And that's the great gospel I always need to hear. That even when I'm completely sinful, Christ is still giving me grace, and has chosen me ante praevisa merita / unconditionally.
The one interesting thing I've found is that describing justification in terms of grace, merit, cooperation, etc is more passe now. It seems like after Jansenism the Church got stuck with how it could talk about it. Thus they've gone to the Greek Fathers and are now big on understanding soteriology through Trinitarian theology and participation in the divine nature etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)