The #2 Bad reason is: "The Catholic Church formally teaches that sinners must earn their way into heaven through good works."
I have long seen this as one of the long standing misunderstandings that emerged out of the Reformation. So, again I do not take issue with the idea that this is a bad reason not to become Roman Catholic. Alvin also picks up on what is the liguistic problem around this issue and it is arround the language of "merit". My own gut responce to his discussion of merit I think give some creedence to his assertion that on the issue of the human role in salvation is the point at which the Reformation and Roman Catholicism part ways.
Yet, as many of my readers know (and as I have argued with Alvin in the past) I assert along with Braaten and Jensen that the Reformation properly understood is catholic and orthodox. My claim though (and this needs to be understood to follow my argument) is not that Reformation theology needs to judge the tradition but that there is continuity with the tradition. Also, I will refrain from attempting to speak for the Reformed (if any Reformed readers whish to jump in here feel free), and it is my sense that for Calvinists when Alvin claims that the Reformantion wants to keep any human factor out of the equation of our salvation and that certainty in these matters is the goal of Reformation thinking. From a Lutheran Pietist perspective both miss the point of the Reformation, while we must admit (since we have resisted this line of thinking) that it is true that both of these accusations are true of some or many Lutherans.
Existentially it is true that the underlying imputus of Luther's quest and then suggested reforms and eventual break with Rome had to do with Luther's obssession with his lack of certainty surounding his salvation. Luther's "discovery" of justification of faith by grace alone freed him from this uncertainty and lead him first to object to the sale of indulgences. Let us be clear and fair, at the time of Luther 'merit' had taken on the crass transactionalims Alvin stresses is a misconstrual. "Merit" in fact for some had taken on a monetary significance, and in some sense was something one could purchase and earn. This is not to say that this is Catholic teaching but if my memory serves me correctly it was an understanding not only tollerated but encouraged by some officials of the church. All of this certainly has made its mark on those church's that emerge out of the Reformation. And for some Lutherans it is true to guard the certianty that Luther won for us and to guard against the abuses of the Late Middle ages around the concept of "merit" this language even the idea was abandoned.
However, this emphasis emerged as problematic and as ultimately betraying the Reformation (again I am telling this from a Lutheran Pietist perspective) in that by removing all human participation in our salvation, all there was for the Christians was to go through empty motions and ascent to empty doctrines. One was batpised and memorized the catechism but nothing happened everything remained the same, there was no life. The deadness that Luther's search was struggling against had retruned with a vengence.
So, Lutheran Pietists asserted that all of this was pointless unless passing through the watters of baptism and faith actually and truely changed us, made us different gave us new life. Thus when von Balthasar as quated in the post suggests replacing "merit" with "fruitfulness", this Lutheran Pietist thinks, oh why of course that makes sense. After all it was the lack of "fruitfulness" that lead us to object to the Lutheran orthodoxy that set itself to guard against uncertainty and to guard against human sharing in our own salvation.
A difference still remains Lutheran Pietism would never say we 'merit' our final salvation, and yet that is in fact how we live and how my parents raised me to live my faith. We may not have the language but we have the life of faith of 'merit'. We are after all called to live as though we merit salvation even though our salvation is by grace through faith. We live it though always through grace and out of our baptism. We are called to run the race and finish, though we only began it because of Christ and God's grace, we would not have begun it on our own.
Thus while I would not have used these exact words I find myself able to affirm the concluding sentences of the post: "But the gospel does not guarantee me my final salvation apart from my repentance, cooperation, and faithfulness. It only guarantees me the absolute love and mercy of the hound of heaven who will chase me relentlessly unto glory. The gospel promises me that God has given me and will give me sufficient and abundant grace to appropriate the freely-offered gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. But he will not take away my freedom. He loves me too much to do so."
We Lutheran Pietist though I think wish to affirm the "sufficiency and abundance" which is all the certainty we need. In some sense if Lutheran Pietism does represent the life of the Refomation I think then that Reformational understandings of salvation properly understood show their catholicity just as the theological language of 'merit' properly understood does not mean that we earn our salvation.
powered by performancing firefox
I have long seen this as one of the long standing misunderstandings that emerged out of the Reformation.
ReplyDeleteAs have I after about 15 years ago somebody pointed out to me why.
So we agree that this original rallying point was in fact a non-issue. And thus you, Mr Kimel (next month he'll be Fr Kimel again as he'll be ordained in the Roman obedience) and I agree: it's a bad reason not to convert!
Of course I don't defend selling indulgences (nor does the church) but to be fair 'merit' is nothing to do with salvation but the notion of temporal punishment (those in purgatory are still saved unlike anybody who ends up in hell).
Thus when von Balthasar as quated in the post suggests replacing "merit" with "fruitfulness", this Lutheran Pietist thinks, oh why of course that makes sense.
Sounds good to me and like it would be accepted by the Christian East as well. Working out our salvation in fear and trembling, the whole point of ascesis for example (misunderstood by Protestants as 'works-righteousness'?).
I really feel for Luther: he made bad mistakes but you can see why he made them. Looking at Lutheranism in its traditional European forms it's clearly a Catholic reform movement that was pushed too far.
Ah agreement, how wonderful. :-)
ReplyDeleteI see your point about indulgence and merit. However, I think my point about the selling of indulgences and its relation to the question of Justification is that it is easy to confuse the issues, and that it is this confusion that in part gives rise to the Reformation. I am thinking in part of the depiction of pergatory in the recent play "The Last Days of Judas Iscariot" where pergatory is a holding place other than hell but from where one could either end up in hell or heaven depending on things that are unclear. I think the play depicts it in this way because for many the theological nuance has been lost.
I wonder if for the diehard Protestants if this really is the issue, not so much the doctrines themselves but what seems to happen to them in reception. It is perhaps worth asking what contributed to these distortions within the church itself, and continues to allow for them? It is a question that Protestants tried to address though obviously we do not escape it.
As for a Catholic reform movement pushed to far, i think I would agree though I would still hold that not in all cases or uniformly so.
In the end though it is not these questions that are the issue, for me at least, it is the nature of apostolicity, and sorting through various claims to fullness of the apostolic continuity.
Thank you, Larry, for your gracious, thoughtful response to my article.
ReplyDeleteCan you describe for me how your understanding of justification differs from confessional Lutheranism as explicated, say, by Melanchthon? Thanks.
Pontificator: How much fruitfulness do we need to have eternal life? Can we know?
ReplyDeleteHow fruitful has the Roman Catholic Church been? What is the standard?
How much fullness? Just God. To be in the eternal Trinity is to have eternal life.
ReplyDeleteHow fruitful has the Catholic Church been? You are a Christian because of the Catholic Church! The Churches of the Reformation didn't receive a direct revelation from God; they received the Catholic faith from the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeletePontificator,
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece on justification. Very clear and concise. It has helped me a great deal. I left the Catholic Church when I heard grace proclaimed (Eph 2) by some reformed types. What I heard growing up as a Catholic was that you are made right with God by good works and the Sacraments. I now see that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is what you say and not what I learned, but I wonder about the idea that you shall know them by their fruits. When John the Baptist sent word to Jesus disciples asking if he was the Christ, Jesus did not respond like you did above. Jesus did not say I am God, end of discussion. Jesus said tell John the Baptist that you see the sick healed and the Gospel proclaimed to the poor etc. So I think it is legitimate to ask whether you can tell if the Catholic Church is the one true Church by its fruits. Also personally, how does an individual know if he is right with God at a given point in time? How fruitful does he have to be? How fruitful does the Catholic Church have to be to be the true Church. How do I make sense of my experience growing up in a dead Church? Well not totally dead, I did recieve the new birth in baptism and the prods didn't have to explain who Jesus was to me. But do you see my struggle? How can I take my children from a church where they sing entusiastically and go out of their way to love their neighbor to the Catholic church down the street where a few old people mumble the Mass?
Perhaps I'm one of the confused ones. I posted on M. Liccione's blog. I now see I've just been echoing what has largely been addressed here.
ReplyDeleteFrom the previous posts it seems like people are agreeing that merit has to do with purgatory, but not with salvation. Is that really the "official" view? I had thought that RC dogma held that salvation was a reward for not only Christ's merit (I think condign?), but for individual merit as well (congruent??). Is it dogmatically held that people in no way merit salvation? but only less time in purgatory?
GCM (Anglican)
I've done some review, and I think it's accurate to say, The Catholic Church formally teaches that believers (not "sinners") must earn/merit their way into heaven (not just out of purgatory) through good works, if one understands those good works to be supernatural, based on a preceding and habitual grace from God. Likewise, the RCC does not teach that sinners or believers merit heaven without God's preceding/habitual grace. Interestingly, I believe the RCC also teaches that someone (not just Christ) can merit initial/preceding grace for another (but not for oneself).
ReplyDeleteI won't say that all that is wrong, but it seems odd, and perhaps distracting. Too often I've seen it result in the call to live and think as a semi-pelagian, even if one technically is not. At least that's what I remember from when I was in the RCC.
And P.S.: my recollection of condign/congruent merit was not incorrect, but mis-applied. The just (by God's grace) man can also merit (condigno, not just congruo) eternal life.
sorry for no links, just google "merit eternal life"
closet cathlic, it is dogma as defined by the Council of Trent that the work of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification (see chapter 7 of the Tridentine Decree on Justification). That is bottomline. The Tridentine dogma has been restated in the Catholic Catechism, which should be read by all by everyone who wishes to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church. Consider the following citations:
ReplyDelete"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men."
"Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."
"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."
The notion of merit can only be properly understood within the assertion of the sola gratia.
Excuse me, my previous comment was principally addressed to Greg.
ReplyDeletecloset catholic, you ask, "How do I make sense of my experience growing up in a dead Church?"
ReplyDeleteThis statement could just as easily have been written by any Protestant. There are plenty of spiritually dead congregations out there in the Protestant world. That's why renewal movements happen.
My father (God rest his soul) experienced a late conversion to Christ. I encouraged him to begin attending Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Virginia, which was then, and still is, a very lively congregation in the evangelical tradition. He then moved to Virginia Beach. He visited many congregations of various denominational stripes, but could never find one that was full of the Holy Spirit. He finally gave up and settled for television preachers.
The fact is, most congregations, particularly if they have been around more than 25 years, are spiritually moribund, at least when compared to that one special congregation that has been formative in our lives.
Within American denominationalism, Protestant congregations are typically self-selecting. Folks with low commitment go to low commitment churches. Folks with high commitment go to high commitment churches. Moving a low commitment church into a high commitment church is very difficult, often impossible. Just ask the many pastors who have tried to lead their congregations into renewal and have failed. We all know the handful of success stories. What we never hear about are the failure stories.
This is why it's so much easier to simply start a new congregation, which is the typical way lively congregations come into being in the Protestant world. As a good evangelical friend of mine, Bishop Frank Lyons of the Anglican Diocese of Ecuador, likes to say, "It's easier to give birth than to raise the dead!"
American Catholic congregations are at a huge disadvantage here. They are large and unwieldy creatures. The Sunday Mass schedule makes it impossible to develop any kind of community life, and the present shortage of priests make effective pastoral work very difficult. Yet for 2,000 years Christ has sustained his Church. Each Sunday he shares himself in his Body and Blood with his sinful people. What an incredible mercy!
See my article "Dare we entrust our children to the Catholic Church?"
The bottomline question: Is the Catholic Church who and what she claims to be? If she is, then one simply has no choice but to be Catholic. Spiritual consumerism cannot be our guide here.
Too often I've seen it result in the call to live and think as a semi-pelagian, even if one technically is not. At least that's what I remember from when I was in the RCC.
ReplyDeleteThe teaching of the Catholic Church must be judged by its formal doctrine, which fortunately is easy to identify, and not by the poor teaching and catechesis that sometimes occurs at the parish level. To add to the misery, many Catholic preachers simply do not know how to preach, and so they resort to moralistic homilies urging the folks to do better. Sigh.
But let's also remember that American religious life, thanks to Finney and Moody, is revivalist to the core; and revivalism is semi-Pelagian! I dare say that many if not most of the lively evangelical congregations today in our country are the fruit of semi-Pelagian preaching and methods. No one should be throwing stones here.
Great dialogue folks.
ReplyDeleteWish I had time to enter into it right now, but alas I do not with family stuff and needing to write a sermon for this Sunday.
Pontificator- I will have to get back to you on Melanchton. But I have to admit I am not all that familiar with his works except in summary. I have not read him. Have read most of Luther's Works, but not the systematizer. But this should not be too surprising, given Lutheran Pietism is not to keen on his systematization of Luther.