--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.
Dr. Sanders does speak in a respectful manner in general though I must say that his biases show a little. (As an example he uses terms such as "Roman doctrines" instead of "Catholic doctrines". Yes, I realize that the Anglican church views herself as "catholic" as well, but to suggest that these doctrines are unique to the Latin Rite is to deny the twenty or so "sui juris" Eastern rite Churches that make up the Catholic Church.) This may be intentional and it may not. I can't really tell.
--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.
This is the exact point where the reformers diverged from Christianity in its previous forms. Christ's righteousness is either imputed (Luther's snow-covered dunghill) or infused. Only one can be correct, not both. This being "covered" certainly does not sound like washing robes in the blood of the Lamb (cf. Rev 22:14). It sounds like using Christ's Blood to make the dirt and grime of sin invisible... not the same thing at all. In addition, as was pointed out by an earlier poster, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that we would be "dependent on our own righteousness"... that is Pelagianism, pure and simple.
I have noticed one thing about Dr. Sanders argument. He presupposes that imputed righteousness is both correct and Biblical without any substantiation, and thus Catholicism's denial of it is in error. (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.). Is this something that is universally believed among Anglicans? It certainly seems to be on the Protestant edge of the "via media" if it is.
--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.
Dr. Sanders explains the distinctions between mortal and venial sins well from a bookish perspective... but I don't think he really understands them. (For that matter, I think a lot of Catholics don't either.) Mortal sin brings death to the soul, while venial sin does not; one thing that Sanders neglected to mention (likely from honestly not knowing) is that the line between venial sins and human imperfections is a blurry one. Even so, the soul that loves God is going to avoid sinning as much as is possible... not so much because we fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because our sins offend God, who is all good and deserving of all our love. That is the nature of being contrite for our sins; we avoid sinning because we love God, and we trust in Him to deliver us from the sufferings of Hell. We should strive for heaven, not for purgatory, even though it is there.
I think that Dr. Sanders's concerns about the state of his soul are overdone; I can't think of any Catholics who worry to the degree that he thinks that he would need to (and for what it's worth, in a different era, Luther would have been told that he is overly scrupulous). Certainty of Salvation isn't granted, but that is the reason for having hope... it is a confidence that God will provide Eternal Life even without an explicit guarantee. And it is not that we need to worry that our good works are acceptible... if we are doing them in complete sincerity, whether or not they are acceptible won't even cross into our minds; we do them out of love for God, just as little children do things in order to please their earthly fathers. "And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity".
Something non-Anglicans tend to forget is that there are two main groups within Anglicanism: the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic. It is almost two churches in one, though perhaps less so than when the Elizabethan Compromise first came down.
Dr. Sanders is definitely centered in the Evangelical wing, the more Protestant element of Anglicanism, and some of what I see here is more likely representative of that wing than Anglicanism as a whole.
it isn't always easy to see clearly from this side of the Tiber to the opposite bank of the Thames.
Sometimes it's not easy to see one bank of the Thames from the other bank of the Thames. *\;-)
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.
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.