Luther on Purgatory

Well, Kiran asked for it, so here it is:

Luther on Purgatory

1. Explanation of the 95 Theses (1518)

“If purgatory is only a workshop of punishment, why not call it “punitory” rather than “purgatory”? For the meaning and force of the term “purgatory” imply a cleansing which can only be understood as pertaining to the remains of the old nature and sin, because of which those persons are unclean who in their affection for eathly things have hindered the purity of faith. But if by the use of the a new ambiguity…they shall say that cleansing here is the same as payment, so that then they are said to be cleansed when the punishments have been paid, I answer: It is despised as easily as it is proved. But if they shall also despise the idea that the meaning of the term includes the cleansing of faults, let it be so. I do not dispute it. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that both meanings are doubtful. For that reason the first meaning has been scattered abroad among the people in a distorted manner and with the greatest of certainty, especially since the basic meaning of the term does not agree with their opinion.”

2. Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528)

“As for the dead…I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.” And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice…

“Nor have we anything in Scripture concerning purgatory. It too was fabricated by goblins. Therefore, I maintain it is not necessary to believe in it; although all things are possible to God, and he could very well allow souls to be tormented after their departure from the body…

“I know of a purgatory, however, in another way, but it would not be proper to teach anything about it in the church, nor on the other hand, to deal with it by means of endowments or vigils.”

“Darwin’s Brave New World”: Richard Dawkins Plays Charles Darwin

Last night I watched the first episode of “Darwin’s Brave New World” on the ABC, a docu-drama style program on the life and work of Charles Darwin.

Can I just say that I have rarely seen such an anachronistic and melodramatic example of television history?

Darwin is portrayed as a man determined to bring down the religious establishment of his time and constantly in danger of being burnt at the stake for suggesting that human beings have descended from apes.

As an example of this, the “opponents” are often shown in the dramatic re-enactments, of speaking against “evolutionists” – as if this term had the same meaning and currently before the publication of “Origin of the Species” as it had afterwards and since. It explicity emplies also that Darwin immediately, from the beginning, in his own mind believed the endpoint of his studies would be to prove the descent of man from more primitive lifeforms. And that his discoveries had led him, not just to doubts about a future in holy orders, but to the rejection of religious faith in total.

It also portrays Darwin as a “fighter for the cause” of atheism, regardless of the cost to himself. In fact, Darwin was highly conscious of his career, and raced to publish “Origin of the Species” when he realised that other naturalists were close on his heels. I am trying – in this instance – to remember the name of a younger naturalist in the East Indies who Darwin corresponded with and from whom he nicked a couple of key ideas (can anyone help me with the name here?).

Richard Dawkins, of course, figures prominently in the panel of experts co-commentating this narrative. I sometimes have trouble telling which character is supposed to be playing Charles Darwin…

Schütz on Fr Z on John Allen on Benedict on the SSPX and TAC…

Sooner or later, the National Catholic reporter is going to have to “let John Allen go”. He might have started off where the editors of this ultra-liberal, practically dissident, magazine is at, but his years of experience covering the Vatican has actually led him to be one of the most balanced and honest reporters in the Catholic world. One wonders how long his editors will continue to put up with his growing habit of calling a spade a spade.

He does it again in this piece, which links the talks with the SSPX, the Anglican Apostolic Constitution, and the European Court’s decision on Crucifixes in Italian schools, with what he calls (correctly, I believe) “Evangelical Catholicism”. Inter alia, he writes:

To over-simplify a bit, Benedict XVI is opening the door to the Lefebvrites and to traditionalist Anglicans in part because whatever else they may be, they are among the Christians least prone to end up, in the memorable phrase of Jacques Maritain, “kneeling before the world,” meaning sold out to secularism.

It is useful to read this piece with Fr John Zuhlsdorf’s comments here.

I actually self-identify (in case you hadn’t realised) with “Evangelical Catholicism”. I described myself as that long before John Allen started using he term – even as a Lutheran! But when Allen began describing it, I thought, yep, that’s me. I think there ar many out there – including you, dear reader – who fall into this category. Each of us is a little grain of proof of what John Allen says in this article.

Also interesting in the light of recent discussions here on the SCE blog is Allen’s reflection that:

Western secularization is crossing the line from neutrality to outright hostility, toward religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Cardinal Renato Martino, the former President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, put things this way: “It looks like a new Inquisition. It is a lay Inquisition, but it is so nasty. You can freely insult and attack Catholics, and nobody will say anything.”…

Perhaps the lone indisputable result of Tuesday’s ruling, therefore, is that it will cement impressions among many religious believers, and particularly among Catholics, that Europe’s secular elites are determined to drive religion out of public life—that the “nasty lay inquisition” to which Martino referred continues apace.

Well… the European lawyers can tick that box.

An Interesting TAC Blogger about the proposed UK Anglican Ordinariate Bishop

Here is an interesting and talented blogger from within the Traditional Anglican Communion. Deborah Gyapong is a Canadian Traditional Anglican, journalist and author. I found her blog while trying to find out if Bishop Robert Mercer, proposed by the UK division of the TAC as their Ordinary under the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution, was celibate.

Google threw up an entry on her blog that appears to have been removed (but is still available in the cache!), in which she wrote:

Bishop Robert Mercer!!!!!! Our beloved retired TAC bishop for Canada. And he is celibate and had been a bishop in the Canterbury Communion (of Matubeleland in his native Zimbabwe) so there should be no problem with Rome’s accepting him as Ordinary.

And my oh my. Bishop Robert is one huge reason why I stuck to the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada when I first visited about ten years ago. I have rarely heard any priest pray the mass like he does. He is so recollected that he would make all my earthbound distractions fall away so I could stand or kneel as the case may be in heaven in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ.

And his homilies and the way he would read an Epistle or Gospel. It would nearly singe your hair–not because he shouted or added any histrionics—but because he would proclaim with such meaning. I remember thinking to myself, it is as if Paul himself is standing there.

I lot of people who are experiencing doubts or misgivings will follow Bishop Robert, simply because they trust him.

That sounds very positive. He would be about 74 now, so he is just on the cupse of the age when retirement is generally required of Catholic bishops, but perhaps Rome will make an exception. They had better get a move on, though.

Purgatory, Indulgences and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

May I direct your attention to a discussion I have been having with Mark Henderson on is “Glosses from an Old Manse” blog concerning Indulgences.

I admit that at first I over-reacted with a bit of a rant. Mark reckons he has found a “weak spot” in my faith. Not a “weak spot”, no, but certainly a “sore spot”. It irks me no end that our Protestant brethren continue to insist that the Catholic Church is inconsistent in its confession that our salvation is completely through the grace and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, and not the result of anything we have done or merited apart from his grace and mercy. He asks:

Does not this teaching and practice detract from the completeness (“It is finished” “Today you will be with me in Paradise”) and thus the glory of Christ’s sacrifice for us?

.

My short answer to that question should have been a straight forward “NO” and left it at that.

My question to him is “Why do you think that the doctrines of Purgatory and Indulgences and associated practices in any way detract from the completeness and glory of Christ’s sacrifice?”

One thing that we have realised in this little “dialogue” is that a major difference between Lutherans and Catholics is how we view what Lutherans call “synergism”, ie. the work of human beings being joined to the work of God. Lutherans energetically and scrupulously maintain a clear distinction (eg. in their liturgical theology they maintan a strict distinction between “sacramental” parts – what God does – and “sacrificial” parts – what we do), while Catholics (and even more so, Orthodox) affirm that God by his grace joins our efforts with his gracious action (eg. so that the liturgy, while being entirely the action of God for us, is also our action for him). At the heart of this is a completely different theology of anthropology, that is, of human nature.

For instance, in the book “The Ratzinger Report” page 146, Cardinal Ratzinger defended the act of praying for the dead as a “widespread” and “immediate” “human” impulse. Lutherans would see this in the light of the fallen nature – that we desire to do something that is sinful and not in accordance with God’s word. Catholics would see this as a sign of that good nature that remains in human beings even after the fall, and thus affirm that the desire to pray for our departed loved ones is good and pleasing to God.

Personally, I think prayer for the dead accords beautifully with Jesus’ words: ““Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.” Given how much we love our departed friends and family, and how much their eternal welfare is of concern to us, why would God say to us “Sorry, this is one thing you are not allowed to pray for”?

Incidentally, when teaching on this subject recently, I realised that we are perhaps mistaken in our usual take on Jesus’ words to the thief from the cross in Luke 23:42-43. It occured to me that what Jesus was doing was directly answering the thief’s request in reference to “the Kingdom”. The “today” could well refer to the fact that right there and then on the cross, Jesus was “coming into his Kingdom”. This is signified by the earlier verses which are all about this subject:

35 And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”

Between the Pope and a Hard Spot

What would you do if you were a Catholic politician (or, more accurately, a politician who was a member of the Catholic Church) and you got an invitation from the Pope to a meeting of international Catholic political leaders to a 2-day seminar in which the topic of discussion would be “Witnesses of Christ in the Political Community”? Would you accept or decline the offer?

If this report is true, that is something that German chancellor Angela Merkel, US vice president Joe Biden and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi will have to decide. For former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Spanish premier Jose Maria Aznar, the decision will be much easier – because they are no longer answerable to their parties and constituencies.

The problem for the sitting politicians is, as far as I can see, the desire on the one hand to validate their claim to being faithful Catholics, and the fear on the other hand of giving their people the impression that Catholic politicians really do take their marching orders from the Pope and this proposed meeting is proof of it.

Of course, if Tony Abbot was on the invite list, we know that he would not hesitate. Everyone already “knows” he takes his orders direct from the Vatican. (Which is why he is so busy going around putting his rosary on women’s ovaries…). Or consider what might happen if the Holy Father expanded his invite list to include our Kevin – who is, of course, a fully initiated, if not card-carrying, Catholic.

When Barney is best

Barney Zwartz, the religion editor at The Age, is always best when he is writing what he really thinks, and not when he is fulfilling the dictates of his overlords and writing what sells newspapers. There are times, when he writes in the latter category, when I could throttle him. If I were to write a nursery rhyme about him, I would say that when he is good, he is pretty good, but when he is bad, he is horrid.

Here is Barney being good. In a post on his blog, The Religious Write, he has this to say about the “New Atheists”:

Aggressive atheism is fuelled around the world chiefly by anti-scientific attitudes on the part of religious people and by fear of Islam. Few are honest enough to spell out the latter – they say, like Christopher Hitchens, that religion poisons everything without making any distinction, but it’s noticeable how active this fundamentalist group (a small but vocal minority of atheists) got after 9/11. I call them fundamentalists and militants because that’s exactly what they are, the mirror image of the religious fundamentalists they despise. But they share the same reductionist world view where not only are they right and everyone else is wrong, but they cannot rest until everyone thinks as they do. They will not rest until they have levelled Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.

“Mate, we don’t hate you, we pity you”

That’s how one online commentator reacted to ACU Vice-Chancellor Greg Craven’s piece in The Age today “A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target”.

Last week, The Age’s sibling, the Sydney Morning Herald, ran a couple of articles on the same topic, leading off with Jewish historian Dvir Abrahamovich’s piece Celebrity atheists expose their hypocrisy, followed by a “right-of-reply” piece by Melbourne University physics tutor James Richmond, Atheists are good humans too. Both pieces are very polite, but rather pedestrian. Abrahamovich recites (in catalogue order) every complaint that any theist anywhere has ever filed against the New Atheists. It is a text book rebuttal – and quite right in practically every point – but not very exciting nor original. Likewise, Richmond’s piece is worthy of a high school debating reply.

Dr Craven has attempted to come at the subject from a different direction. I seem to recall that soon after he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he made a speech decrying the lack of “public theologians” today, after the manner of Chesterton and Santamaria – people who used intelligence and wit to make their point, and who were not afraid to take up the pen and fight the good fight. (I cannot locate that speech on the internet now – does anyone know the speech to which I refer?). In this piece, as in a similar piece he did last year during World Youth Day, he aims for a tone which is “clever, witty and funny”.

Unfortunately, he is no more successful at this than his opponents. You can see him making the effort, but it all falls rather flat, and he comes out sounding just like a mirror image of Christopher Hitchen’s on a bad day.

I think the piece fails on a couple of grounds. For a start, he is wrong to say that the New Atheists are fixated on the Catholic Church. They are just as scathing of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Secondly, his humour is more in the Catherine Deveny style than the Chesterton style. If I were a Christadelphian chartered accountant named Algie who lived in Birchip, I would find some of his jokes at my expense a bit off. And then, unlike Abrahamovich’s piece, it doesn’t really contain much of substance.

Still, he makes one good point: the New Atheists are not especially “bright”, despite Dawkins’ own claim to that description. I could name any number of theologians or philosophers who plumb greater depths of the human situation than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Neither of them matches the sublimity of Joseph Ratzinger, just to take a random example. They are what a friend of mine calls “deep thinkers in the shallow end of the pool”.

But back to the comment that I started with. I believe Dr Craven has overstated the “case for hate”. I think the commentator has it right: the New Atheists do not hate us so much as pity us. And personally, I would rather they hated us so that we could stage a few good martyrdoms. The ignominy of condescension which results from pity is, I would argue, harder to bear.

Schütz disagrees with Vatican re Crucifixes in Classrooms

There. I thought that would get your attention. But before you hawl me out to burn me at the stake, let me say that I am all in favour of crucifixes in classrooms – and just about everywhere and anywhere else too, public or private. My disagreement is concerns what the crucifix is and stands for.

The story to which this opening gambit relates is this from Zenit:

Vatican “Regrets” European Court Ruling on Crucifix: Spokesman Defends Symbol of Italian Culture, Identity.

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 3, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican expressed “astonishment” and “regret” at Tuesday’s decision from the European Court of Human Rights that crucifixes in public school classrooms are a violation of freedom. Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, gave a brief statement today to Vatican Radio in response to the decision.

“The crucifix has always been a sign of God’s offer of love, of union and of welcome for the whole of humanity,” the spokesman said. “It is to be regretted that it has come to be considered as a sign of division, of exclusion and of limitation of liberty. It is not this, and it is not so in the common feeling of our people.”

The Italian government protested the ruling, having contended that crucifixes — often hung in Italian public schools — are national symbol of culture and history. Father Lombardi echoed this idea. He called particularly grave “the desire to set aside from the educational world a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture.”

…”It is astonishing then that a European court should intervene weightily in a matter profoundly linked to the historical, cultural and spiritual identity of the Italian people,” the Vatican spokesman stated.

I stand four-square with Fr Lombardi, the Vatican the Italian government and anyone else who wishes to display a crucifix in a public place of education. They could add a stone plaque of the Ten Commandments while they are at it. The European Union is obviously dead set intent upon removing all religious symbols from the public square. This intention should be opposed for all it is worth – even to the point of civil disobedience.

So what is my disagreement? I disagree with the Vatican taking the Italian Government’s stance that the Crucifix is “a national symbol of culture and history”. If we allow the crucifix to become this, we are treating it no differently than the person who asks for a “cross with the little man on it” at a jeweller’s shop.

St Paul said that the Crucified Christ is a “scandal” and “foolishness” to those who are not believers and the “power and wisdom of God” to those who are (1 Cor 1:23-24). Of course the image of the Crucifix is “a sign of God’s offer of love, of union and of welcome for the whole of humanity,” but not to those who hate it and hate Christ. To them, a Crucifix is about as in-your-face as you can get. It is no surprise they want it banned.

We should not sugar-coat the shocking reality of the depth to which Jesus was willing to be humiliated for our salvation (cf. Phil 2). Nor should we ever argue that the Crucifix is “just” a cultural symbol, even as a tactic to keep it legal to display it publically. It is the price paid for our salvation. We love it, because we believe it and have experienced God’s wisdom and power through it. But to them it is foolishness and a scandal.

We can “regret” the decision of the EU court, but we should not be “astonished”.

“Blended Worship”?

The Protestants have something they call a “blended worship” style – a mixture of traditional and “contemporary” styles in the one worship service. While somewhat sympathetic, it can be a little ugly. Here is a “spoof” from this site which you might find rather amusing. See if you can pick the original music on which it is based before you go and get the answer from the original website.