Posted on 12/26/2006 12:41:46 PM PST by sionnsar
[Folks, I'm sure there will be some who will disagree with Dr. Sanders on some point or another. Do discuss -- but please remain civil. --sionnsar]
Where do we, as Anglicans, stand in regard to Rome? Given the conflict in the Anglican Communion and the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, is Rome a safe haven? Does she stand firm against the errors of modernity? Are the errors of Anglicanism so great, and those of Rome so minor, as to warrant a "return" to Rome?
In this essay I will review some of Anglicanism's original differences with Rome and briefly assess their significance. Above all, I wish to focus on the great Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. Differences on that doctrine led to the Anglican break with Rome, and further, the Reformers were convinced that this doctrine was critical for our salvation. 1
Nothing is more serious, more indispensable, more essential, than to know how and why we are saved. Therefore, let us consider justification and certain allied doctrines.
For the Roman position on justification, I have studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1992 by the authority of John Paul II. It was written under the direction of then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. This new Catechism is the first officially authorized catechism of the Roman Church since the 1566 Catechism that enshrined the doctrines of Trent.
As described in its opening sections, the 1992 Catechism is a "sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial community." It "is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety."2 In other words, the Catechism is a complete and sufficient norm for the Catholic faithful. For Anglican teaching, I have relied most heavily on Scripture, Hooker, the Articles of Religion, the Homily on Salvation, and the texts by W. H. Griffth Thomas and E. H. Browne.3 Now, where do we begin our doctrine of justification?
Let us begin with the true God. The one and only living God is a consuming fire. At the sight of his face heaven and earth flee away.4 He is just. He is righteous. He is pure. He brooks no rivals, He allows no sin, He accepts no impurity. Before him, we are dust and ashes, our good deeds filthy rags, our churches whitewashed tombs, our nation shaken by the "ax that is already at the root of the trees."5 Over against this holy God, all have sinned, all lost, all doomed, all driven back with nowhere to stand.6 Everywhere, all around us, the "wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness ... for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."7 That is our true condition.
Most people do not believe this. They don't see God as a threat. They think God is a sugar daddy, purveying cheap grace to any and all. They haven't seriously considered the prospect that may lie ahead, that it "is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.8 They think real threats lie elsewhere. They worry about their relationships, their income, their health. They are preoccupied with the liberal bias of the media, with abortion on demand, with sexual permissiveness, with terrorism, with right-wing war-mongers, corporate globalism, the environment, a thousand things except the one thing above all: How can we stand before a holy, righteous God who consumes all unrighteousness? And if we cannot stand, what will happen to us? That is the present danger, and God has made a way, justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Justification by grace through faith is the great good news of the Protestant Reformation. In one stroke the Reformers did away with the corrupt medieval system of trading in grace--the indulgences, casuistry, and merits, the calculating and sweating before a holy God who demands perfect righteousness. In its place came the great assurance that God by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ has clothed us with Christ's righteousness through the forgiveness of our sins received in faith. This means that the true God is not the imagined god of our guilt, but rather, the Father of Jesus Christ. When this God considers us, He imputes Christ's righteousness to us. That is, He reckons and judges us as righteous, not with our own righteousness, but with the righteousness of Christ.
Through Christ, we are ever pleasing in his sight. No act, prayer, sacrifice, or good deed on our part can add to this perfect gift. This gift is a blessing, a comfort, a hope, the only hope of salvation before a holy God. For this reason, Article XI of the Articles of Religion proclaims that justification is a "most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort ... "
How is this great gift received? The righteousness of Christ is received in faith where faith itself is given by God's grace. First and foremost, faith means trust. It means believing and accepting that God truly considers us righteous with the righteousness of Christ. It means holding fast to the promise that the "righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known to us, ... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe"9
This blessing does not mean that good works are irrelevant. Those who believe in God's justifying love will express their thankfulness in works of righteousness. Faith as trust will result in the obedience of good works. These good works are our sanctification. Good works, however, cannot save, nor do they lessen the need for justification.10 They fall beneath the severity of God's judgment. Nevertheless, as described in Article XII, they are pleasing to God.
Justification and sanctification are both works of grace, but they differ. Justification is once and final, sanctification is daily, a daily effort to die to sin and rise to newness of life. Justification is imputed, sanctification is infused. Justification is external, attributed to us, sanctification is internal, the transformation of our nature.11
Here is Hooker: Thus we participate Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth, and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies made like unto his in glory.12
This great hope in Christ's righteousness can be distorted. One can, for example, believe that God is a sweet old fellow who expects so little of us. This perspective is congruent with the paganism of our culture and found throughout the liberal churches. Another way to diminish God's holiness and the horror of sin is to believe that we, by our own works aided by grace, can be righteous before God. This is the Roman position.
In regard to justification, the Roman Catechism makes the following statements,
Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness.
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.13
Anglicanism and Rome agree that justification requires the grace of God given in Jesus Christ. They differ in that Anglicanism believes that God imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our justification, while Rome holds that God infuses righteousness into us so that our righteousness, though enabled by grace, is the righteousness of our good works rather than Christ's imputed righteousness. Or, to put it another way, for the Anglican Reformers, justification is a once and for all act effected by Jesus Christ and received in faith. For Rome, justification is the process of achieving holiness given in the life-long effort to daily conquer sin. Or, for Anglicanism, one can be both justified and a sinner since the righteousness of justification is that of Christ and imputed to us while our unrighteousness is our own.
For Rome, however, one cannot be both justified and a sinner since the only righteousness we possess is our own which cannot coexist with our unrighteousness. A number of critical consequences follow from these profound differences.
For both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, faith is a response to God's grace. For Rome, however, faith is not, in the first instance trust in God's promise of imputed righteousness.
Rather, faith is belief in the truth of God's words followed by obedience. "By faith man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. ... Sacred Scripture calls this ... 'the obedience of faith.'"14 Since faith includes obedience to God's commands, both belief in God's revelation and obedience to his commands are necessary for salvation. This implies that a certain degree of achieved righteousness is necessary to be saved.
In the context of a discussion of indulgences, purgatory, and hell, the Catechism affirms that a "conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain."15
In other words, sufficiently holy souls might avoid hell as well as the fires of purgatory. It was this doctrine, leading to an insidious uncertainty as regards his own righteousness, that plunged Luther into the hell of spiritual despair. He could never be sure he was sufficiently pure.
Since good works contribute decisively to salvation, they have eternal value, and if shared, can contribute to the salvation of others. This leads to the doctrine of a treasury of merit, a reservoir of good deeds done by Christ, the Virgin, and holy souls. These merits are dispensed by the Roman Church as indulgences and can shorten the suffering of souls in purgatory.16 This is Roman doctrine and clearly taught in the Catechism.
Since faith is assent to saving truths followed by obedience, it follows that the soul must be obeying the right moral and doctrinal norms for this obedience to save. To that end, the Roman Church believes she possesses the pure doctrinal and moral code that must be obeyed by the faithful. This righteousness on her part leads at once to the concept of infallibility.
Just as Rome believes the soul can reach a certain degree of "perfection," she also believes she possesses a degree of perfect, infallible truth. Here is the Roman doctrine. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith--he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals.17
The infallible pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff add to the tradition, that living body of Truth preserved in the Roman Church alongside Scripture. For Rome, Scripture and tradition have equal authority, and Rome uniquely preserves the living stream of the tradition as well as the correct interpretation of Scripture.18
This doctrine has affinities with the liberal doctrine that the Church can create new truth, a doctrine relentlessly promoted by the former Presiding Bishop (Frank T. Griswold) of the Episcopal Church.19 This liberal claim is not an expression of modernity, but rather, an ancient penchant to locate truth in ourselves, in our own wisdom and insight.
It is the promise of the serpent, that we can "become like God, knowing good and evil."20 Against this endemic human inclination, Article XIX of the Articles of Religion states, "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
Further, according to Rome, salvation requires progress in good works and this progress is inhibited by sin. Some sins are fatal, they lead to hell, while other sins do not condemn to hell. The former are called mortal sins, the latter venial. Mortal sin must concern a grave matter and it must be committed with full knowledge and deliberate intent.21
Mortal sin without repentance results in "exclusion from Christ's Kingdom and the eternal death of hell, ... "22 Venial sins, if severe enough to exclude from immediate entrance into heaven, can be expiated in the sufferings of purgatory. Given this belief, anyone serious about leading a holy life before the all-consuming judgment of God will never be sure they have escaped the insidious taint of venial or mortal sins.
Anglicanism was a reform movement within the wider stream of Christian faith and practice. Anglicans claimed that the teachings of Rome had departed from Scripture and the faith and practice of the first few centuries.
Today, given the chaos in liberal Protestantism, there is the temptation to return to Rome. It must be said, however, that the substantive theological differences that divided the church in the sixteenth century still stand.
Efforts to resolve those differences have failed. Lutherans and Roman Catholics have been in dialogue since 1964, meeting over fifty times. In 1999 a document on justification was produced. The Vatican response can be found on their web site.23
In the view of Rome, one cannot be both righteous and a sinner because they do not believe in imputed righteousness. The rancor and bitterness on both sides of the sixteenth century debate has abated, but the issues still stand, and from the perspective of Rome, so do her anathemas.24
I am hesitant to be critical of Rome. After the rampart heresies of the liberal Protestant churches, one cannot help but admire Rome in her steadfast refusal to bow before certain idols of modernity. Further, in the sections on the Church, I found her teaching most irenic, holding to her own supremacy yet not condemning of others.25
On the other hand, so much is at stake. According to the Anglican Reformers, this Roman teaching does not do justice to Scripture, to the holiness of God, the depth of human sin, the fallibility of our understanding of Christian truth, the power of Christ's atonement, and the need for peace with God in regard to our salvation. In the end, it leaves us before a holy God dependent on our own righteousness. I would not want to stand there. I cannot be in a church that would have me stand there. No one can stand there. No one, none, except Christ and those clothed in his righteousness received in faith, can stand.
I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light.26
Somewhere, someday, I will stand before God. On that day, heaven and earth may flee away, but I will stand serene, for at my side will be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I cannot thank him enough. We cannot praise him enough. To him be the honor and the glory and the power forever and forever.
Amen.
Endnotes
1. For a succinct list of why the Anglican Reformers broke with Rome, see Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 467-8. By and large, communion in one kind, for example, these differences still hold.
2. Part 3 of the opening section, and in the main body of the text, paragraph 18.
3. Browne, Edward Harold. An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles. London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1887. Thomas, Griffith W.H. Principles of Theology. London: Church Book Room Press, 1951.
4. Heb. 12:29, Rev. 20:11.
5. Job 42:6, Isa. 64:6, Mt. 23:27, Mt. 3:10.
6. Rev. 6:17.
7. Rom. 1:18, 3:23.
8. Heb. 10:31.
9. Rom. 3:21-22.
10. "... although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of GOD within us, and do never so many works thereunto: yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification, and therefore we must trust only in GODS mercy, and that sacrifice which our high Priest and Savior Christ Jesus the son of GOD once offered for us upon the Crosse, ... " (Homily on the Salvation of Mankind) You will not find a statement such as this in the Roman Catechism.
11. Griffith Thomas gives a clear, concise summary of the differences between justification and sanctification. Thomas, Principles of Theology, pp. 186-7.
12. Richard Hooker, Laws, V,lvi,11.
13. Catechism, paragraphs 1989, 1990, and 2019.
14. Catechism, paragraph 143. See the entire discussion on the first article of the Creed, "I believe," paragraphs 144-165.
15. Catechism, paragraph 4117.
16. See the section on Indulgences, paragraphs 1471 and following.
17. Catechism, paragraph 891.
18. Catechism, paragraphs 80-83.
19. See my essay entitled "Mystical Paganism--an Analysis of the Presiding Bishop's Public Statements" in the theology section of my web page (www.rsanders.org).
20. Gen. 3:5.
21. Catechism, paragraph 1857.
22. Catechism, paragraph 1861.
23. http://tinyurl.com/ycyznd.
24. "So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on simul iustus et peccator is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification." (See the previous endnote for the reference.)
25. The Catechism, paragraphs 836-38. This section reminds me of the irenic temper found in Hooker's sermon "A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown." In my view, Anglicanism has been rather restrained in its approach to Rome.
26. The greatest thing that happened to me in seminary was that the Rt. Rev. FitzSimons Allison, then professor of church history, taught me the great, saving doctrine of justification by grace through faith. It revolutionized my relation to God. I had spent my childhood in a fundamentalist church, four years of required chapel at Sewanee, and three years in the renewal movement in Florida, and as far as I know, never heard this saving doctrine.
---The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D. is the pastor of Christ Church Anglican in Jacksonville, Florida: www.christchurchjax.com. Dr. Sanders is a Virtueonline columnist writing on issues of theology and faith. His website can be accessed here: www.rsanders.org.
"Is there a difference here between the Catholics and the Orthodox? I suspect the latter would replace "offend" with "separate us from", but I don't quite follow from there. Perhaps because I've heard little to nothing of "mortal vs venial sins" from the Orthodox here."
Ah, this is one of your arcane Western problems. Imputed or infused "righteousness" has little or no meaning in Orthodox theology. In fact, I can't think of an eastern Father, off hand, who spoke at all about this. Remember, our concept of ancestral sin is quite different from your Augustinian "Original Sin". The East has never had the view that mankind was utterly depraved after the Fall or perfect before the Fall. A Calvinist FRiend informed me some years back that we Orthodox ar "synergists", in other words, we cooperate with God's grace to advance in theosis...or we don't on both counts. In this we believe that by the Incarnation, the Crucifixtion and the Resurrection, Christ, by destroying the bonds of death, restored us to the original potential we had before the Fall, the possibility of becoming divinized, theosis. Justification and Righteousness are usually used only by Orthodox writers who are trying to put Orthodox theology and sotierology in terms Western Christians can understand. But they really don't fit. I suppose the best I can say is that Justication is a gift of the Holy Spirit to those who respond to the Gospel with Faith. God also helps those who cooperate with His grace to become righteous. Righteousness is similarly a gift of the Holy Spirit given to those who live a good, just and blameless life. But we can never earn any of this by our own merits. We can merely chose to cooperate or not. These gifts transform the Christian. As +Symeon the New Theologian wrote:
"Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."
And as +John Chrysostomos preached:
"The dispensation of our God and Saviour concerning man is a recall from the fall, and a return from the alienation caused by disobedience to close communion with God. This is the reason for the sojourn of Christ in the flesh, the pattern of life described in the Gospels, the sufferings, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection; so that the man who is being saved through imitation of Christ receives the old adoption. For perfection of life the imitation of Christ is necessary, not only in the example of gentleness, lowliness, and long suffering set us in His life, but also of His actual death. So Paul, the imitator of Christ, says, `being made conformable unto His death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.' How then are we made in the likeness of His death? In that we were buried with Him by baptism."
Oh, and we make no distinction between mortal and venial sins. Our purpose is to become like God and thus share in or come into communion with His uncreated energies (but not His essence). Not being like Christ is to "miss the mark (Christ)" which is what the Greek word "amartia", sin, means.
Thus, Sanders provides a sort of half answer. The issue must be addressed using a different set of assumptions for those Anglicans who were not in the camp of reformed theology.
SIMUL JUSTUS ET PECCATOR!!!
(always wanted a bumpter sticker that says that...seems especially appropriate while driving...)
I think you MUST have misread it, as the essay makes clear that the only place of safety to go, is into the saving arms of Christ alone...
You miss the point, classical Anglican doctrine has one FINAL authority, God's Word, the Scriptures. Roman doctrine has twin final authorities, authoritative Church teachings, AND the Scriptures. Liberal Anglicans/Episcopalians also have twin final authorities, Church speculations...(often never more than that...)and (supposedly) the scriptures.
You're right the nature of those "authorities" are completely different (the liberals make an ultimate claim of no ultimate authority....) however, both systems, liberal Protestant, and Roman Catholic, do not have the scriptures alone as final authority.
No, I did NOT miss the point. The author made a wholly illegitimate comparison and you are trying to rectify it by substituting one that is more palatible to you. But your "point" doesn't fit the context. The author suggested that papal infallibility could lead to the sort of lisenciousness found in the liberal Episcopal Church. You may not like papal infallibility but suggesting that it could be a mechanism for the acceptance of practicing homosexuals being elected bishop, or any of the other recent Episcopalian travesties is risible!
Contrary to the author's assertions, infallibility does not add to the Word of God; it is merely interpretation, and, with two exceptions, very literalist interpretations. But what it does is establish a set, authorized interpretation for all ages, so that once an ecumenical council or Pope denounces homosexuality, no liberals can later quibble, as they have in the Episcopalian church, over whether or not St. Paul merely meant temple prostitution when he condemned homosexuality; or whether the Old Testament proscriptions are still in effect.
And that is a protection AGAINST liberalism, not an oppportunity for it.
Actually, to speak of "universal" doctrines, as opposed to identifying those doctrines which were developed and approved officially by a certain body headed by a curia living in Rome, is less accurate, and already assumes Roman Catholic doctrine is universally Christian doctrine--when millions of Christians around the world do not acknowledge that. "Roman Catholic" is really the most accurate way to refer to things of the Church of Rome, however "Roman" is shorthand for that--and accurately reflects the opinions of those who do not acknowledge Roman dogma as universally authoritative over all Christians.
It seems pretty arrogant to expect Anglicans to refer to Roman doctrines with a shorthand of "universal."
(besides the Orthodox have at least as much claim to being as ancient and universal in their doctrines as Rome...but that's a different matter.)
"Roman" too, being shorthand for Roman Catholic, is a neutral term too, and not associated with terms considered by some pejorative, like "papist" or "popish" which some Anglican writers (C. S. Lewis, for example...following Oxford usage of his day) of generations past used.
But please, do not expect non-Roman Catholic Christian scholars to use the term "Catholic" in referring to the distinctive teachings of the Church of Rome.
No, of course not...but can you say that several (if not many?) of the popes of that era were not utterly corrupted (even sexually) by the enormous power the doctrine of infallibility (as they understood it...) rendered them? Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes in the late medieval (and most powerful) period--otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following (and most of the monastic orders would never have needed founding...).
Lord Acton's aphorism on power applies...even (or especially?) in the Church.
Aren't you confusing infallibility with impeccability? The office does not impart holiness to the individual.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Now, if we could locate one of these sinful individuals that proposed for belief by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals that was contradictory to Revelation, infallibility would certainly be considered doubtful by any rational person.
Roman is NOT a neutral term. The word is used to conjure up images of Babylon, Caligulus, and allegations of Constantine's supposed corruption of Catholicism. The Vatican isn't even IN Rome.
Actually, I think the use of the terminology, "offend God" is a bow to Protestant misunderstandings of some supreme notion of being "separated" from God.
The Orthodox, AFAIK, do not distinguish between mortal and venial sins; and the distinction is even a dangerous one for modern times. A better distinction would be between "grave" sins and "venial" sins; a "grave" sin being one with the severity to be mortal, but not necessarily the requisite deliberateness or knowledge to be mortal.
The Catholic distinction is based on the notion that certain sins, if deliberate, chosen of free will, and with full understanding of their severity, signify a refusal of grace.
>> but can you say that several (if not many?) of the popes of that era were not utterly corrupted (even sexually) by the enormous power the doctrine of infallibility (as they understood it...) rendered them? <<
No; their corruption lay in their TEMPORAL power, of the political influence of their office, not in the ETERNAL power, of their magisterial power to discern infallible dogma.
>> Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes <<
Actually, that helps establish the virtue of the infallible office: that the sinfulness of certain popes did NOT stain the infallibility of the office.
>> otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following <<
Well, Luther gave witness to a great many horrors in Rome, without seeming to notice the basic geography. It is possible Luther slandered, isn't it? I would say Luther's success depended a far greater deal on the unwillingness of German aristicracy to pay to fend off the Muslim invasion. (Did not in modern days Democrats lie about scandals to attack Reagan so as to weaken the defense budget so as to soften anti-commmunism?) Plus the horrors (famine, etc.) brought about by the sudden cooling of Protestant lands (you'll notice the warmer regions remained Catholic) made people believe SOMEBODY had to be doing SOMETHING very evil, which Luther capitalized on, claiming that the plague and the famines were the fulfillment of Apocalyptic prophecies of vengesnce against the Whore Babylon.
I suppose that depends upon your definition of "in".
Dangus points up another distinction between Orthodox and Western ideas about sin. As the priest says in confession, our sins are forgiven whether known or unknown. Missing the mark does not require a conscious effort on our part.This is consistent with Orthodox theology on how we are judged at the Final Judgment, not whether we have fasted, done good deeds or failed to fast or committed evil deeds but rather we are scrutinized to determine of we have any similitude to Christ. God loves all of us and his grace falls on the good and the evil alike. But in the end, it is that divine love which scourges those how have rejected God and becomes a torment to them, just as that same love creates Paradise for those who have approached or attained theosis.
Maybe some reasons as pointed out on:
http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.htm
http://www.chnetwork.org/trconv.htm
"O Lord, blot out my sins
O Master, pardon my iniquities,
O Holy One, visit and heal my infirmities
For Your Name's sake."
To my mind, that addresses three different aspects of sin: the way my sins wound others (please blot the harm I've done to my fellow man), the way they hurt my relationship with God (please forgive me and let me approach You again), and the way they weaken and sick my own heart and make me "infirm" (please heal my inmost heart.)
I also believe that God does NOT simply cover our inner dung-heap with a mantle of snow, but actually gets into us and makes us beautiful. He plants love in us; then when He looks, He finds it blossoming there.
So we can say, not "I am disgusting, but he loves me because he loves disgusting things," but "He sees something lovable in me! He looks at me and is delighted! I am actually lovable!"
Beautifully said, Mrs. Dono. And I greatly appreciate your comments, too, Kolokotronis.
Trackback Pontifications: http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2124
Welcome to Free Republic!
I knew there were problems with the reasoning, but it was late at night, I was tired (I am "vacationing" with three teenagers and two Labrador Retrievers), so I let it go to see what the resident FR Catholics would come up with.
Lots of good stuff, as it turns out, and a new FR Catholic.
Welcome aboard from a former nosebleed-High Anglican, now happily a member of a great Catholic parish!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.