tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post3589878551076954114..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: St. Thomas Aquinas on PenanceBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-74440611387950481092009-02-20T00:18:00.000-06:002009-02-20T00:18:00.000-06:00Neal,I agree with what you said. The degree of dis...Neal,<BR/><BR/>I agree with what you said. The degree of disorder in the soul would directly correspond to the degree of temporal punishment due (because the degree of disorder caused in the soul by an unjust act is directly proportional to the injustice of the act). So, paying the debt and removing the disorder would coincide, without reducing one to the other.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-57303756690025987302009-02-07T08:06:00.000-06:002009-02-07T08:06:00.000-06:00Thanks Bryan, that does make some sense, I have re...Thanks Bryan, that does make some sense, I have read the CCC and <I>Indulgentiarum Doctrina</I> and, granted it may be bacuse I am not majorly bright, but I just can't seem to get a handle on indulgences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-27150405845964125562009-02-07T06:11:00.000-06:002009-02-07T06:11:00.000-06:00Richard,The Church's teaching on indulgences follo...Richard,<BR/><BR/>The Church's teaching on indulgences follows from three things: the power of the keys given to the Church, by which the Church can forgive sins (John 20:23), the communion of the saints (1 Cor 12, Job 1:5) by which we can aid one another in the Body of Christ through our prayers and sacrifices, and the two-fold nature of sin (both away from God, and toward a mutable good), which entails two sorts of punishments, one eternal, and other temporal, as I explained in the post. That two-fold nature of sin is confirmed when Jesus refers to a two-fold forgiveness ("in this age, and in the age to come" - Matt 12:31), and in the practice of prayer for the dead (2 Macc 12:46), which would be of no use to the damned. It is also confirmed in the distinction between mortal and venial sin (cf. 1 John 5:16). Thus, if the Church (by the authorization of Christ) can forgive sins, and remove *eternal* punishment, then <I>a fortiori</I>, she can remove temporal punishment, by the merits of Christ and all the saints. And that is just what an indulgence is.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-88646157198024316882009-02-07T04:58:00.000-06:002009-02-07T04:58:00.000-06:00Hi Bryan,I am just wondering if the Church's teach...Hi Bryan,<BR/><BR/>I am just wondering if the Church's teaching on indulgences has a biblical foundation or whether it's purely Tradition.<BR/><BR/>- RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-70682736717076740952009-02-04T08:47:00.000-06:002009-02-04T08:47:00.000-06:00Thanks, Bryan.These are my thoughts too. Clearly ...Thanks, Bryan.<BR/><BR/>These are my thoughts too. Clearly Aquinas isn't using 'sanctification' in precisely the way it's often used, and that can cause confusion. But he clearly has a category in his thinking for that to which 'sanctification' refers in the mouths of Protestants and others.<BR/><BR/>You're right that the Catechism refers to indugences as remitting temporal punishments. There is a classical Thomistic reading of this which tells us quite plainly that this remission of temporal punishment has to take place so as to satisfy a debt to justice. At the same time, the Catechism and the last two Popes (at least) want to focus on another aspect of 'temporal punishment', namely, that it isn't an externally imposed penalty so much as a natural consequence of sin itself, which brings disorder to the soul and engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. The Catechism points out that this is why sin "tends to reproduce" and strengthen itself in the individual. And making satisfaction for (this aspect of) the temporal punishment for sin is accordingly understood as purging these disorders and recovering spiritual health ('growing in sanctification', if you like).<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking that what the Catechism says is however most likely consistent with what St Thomas says. Its focus isn't on justice and paybacks here as much as it is on purging the remnants of sin and growing in holiness in cooperation with divine grace. But it could be that the other understanding of temp. punishment/satisfaction (in Aquinas) is not ruled out by this. (Same thing goes for indulgences, perhaps.)<BR/><BR/>An interesting upshot is this. If the doctrine of purgatory fixes the boundaries, so to speak, but is consistent with a plurality of theoretical approaches to purgatory, then Catholics might disagree on whether an individual who is already fully prepared, intrinsically, for communion with God, may still have a debt to justice to payoff in purgatory. Aquinas would certainly say so. But it appears that many contemporary Catholics are pushing things in an opposite direction: they would say, "No, once the remnants of sin have been eliminated, there's no more temporal punishment (corrosion of soul) to make satisfaction for; so, you go to heaven then."<BR/><BR/>One way of getting agreement on all this may be to say that both aspects of temp. punishment get satisfied simultaneously: you pay your debt, also get rid of the remnants/imperfections to prepare the soul for union with God, but neither of these processes outlasts the other. (That's just a position in logical space; maybe it wouldn't work).<BR/><BR/>Still: very interesting stuff here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>NealNeal Judisch and Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892594222503490749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-56986024569004250582009-02-04T00:03:00.000-06:002009-02-04T00:03:00.000-06:00Neal,I'm getting ready for bed, so this will be br...Neal,<BR/><BR/>I'm getting ready for bed, so this will be brief. I think that the term 'sanctification' as used in Catholic theology, is not necessarily the same as that term in Protestant theology, where it is a broader term. It seems to me that in Catholic theology, 'sanctification' has to do with sanctifying grace. One can be fully sanctified, and still have concupiscence, for example. Protestants would not use the term in that way. So, (and I haven't researched this), I want to make sure we're very clear about what it is we are talking about when we use the term 'sanctification'. <BR/><BR/>I don't see any reason to think that purification and satisfaction can't both take place in purgatory. At least three of the references to 'indulgences' in the Catechism refer to it as a remission of temporal punishment. <BR/><BR/>Darin,<BR/><BR/>God delights in letting us participate, because it give Him greater glory to let us share in His work, and it gives us greater dignity to share in His work, to be causal agents in our own self-formation and self-determination. This is why He didn't just create angels and humans all already in the beatified state. (He could have done that, you know.)<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-67917232847666492132009-02-03T22:36:00.000-06:002009-02-03T22:36:00.000-06:00Thanks, Eric.I think I'm clear on these points and...Thanks, Eric.<BR/><BR/>I think I'm clear on these points and okay with them. What I was wondering about was the relation of indulgences granted to departed souls which, as JPII says, are not to be understood as a "transfer" of merit "as if we were talking about 'things'", but are instead to be understood as an expression of the Church's confidence of being heard by the Father, when she asks (through the power of the keys, works and prayers offered by other members of the Mystical Body), that God would bring about the "medicinal aspects" of temporal punishment in such a way that they are purified (eliminate the remnants of sin) through "other channels of grace" and "without the typical associated pains" of temporal punishment. <BR/><BR/>That's the bit I was wondering about: does Aquinas say anything that connects with this? How precisely are we to make sense of it? Etc. John Paul II points to the "unfathomable mystery of divine wisdom" here, and I'm okay with that, but I'd like to understand it to whatever degree I can and try to reconcile it with views according to which the painfulness of purgation is an essential part of its 'sanctifying' or 'remnant-of-sin-eliminating' aspect.<BR/><BR/>NealNeal Judischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00410639372727863337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-77279483521506525492009-02-03T20:22:00.000-06:002009-02-03T20:22:00.000-06:00Also, as I understand it, one cannot gain an indul...Also, as I understand it, one cannot gain an indulgence for another living person on earth, though they can apply to souls in purgatory. <BR/><BR/>EricEric Telferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10747957049183341114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-60153176619593577772009-02-03T20:18:00.000-06:002009-02-03T20:18:00.000-06:00I think that it is important to get a few things c...I think that it is important to get a few things clear about indulgences. <BR/><BR/>First, they are a remission of temporal punishment. We are not on the forgiveness side of things here, as has been pointed out. That has already been taken care of. We are now talking about a temporal punishment that is due to make up for or balance out what we have made wrong or unbalanced, as when a child damages property and is forgiven, but must still pay for the damaged property, despite having been forgiven. <BR/><BR/>Second, historically, the Church has had a role in giving out temporal punishments. At certain times in history the temporal punishments given out were quite severe, depending on the population and the need for discipline. The Church could then, after having given out a temporal punishment, grant a remission of all or part of that temporal punishment so that people would not be, say, barred from communion for life. <BR/><BR/>Third, a person does not buy himself out of the temporal punishment, but a person can be granted relief from previously assigned temporal punishment by performing certain deeds, if the Church so chooses and the person approaches the Church in a state of grace with the appropriate intentions. <BR/><BR/>EricEric Telferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10747957049183341114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-21416854502202338892009-02-03T18:18:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:18:00.000-06:00Bryan,I think I've answered at least some of my qu...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>I think I've answered at least some of my questions by reading through Q 86 art 5.<BR/><BR/>Still thinking about indulgences, though.<BR/><BR/>NealNeal Judischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00410639372727863337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-86789551837194582662009-02-03T11:32:00.000-06:002009-02-03T11:32:00.000-06:00Oh, another thing. JPII also really tries, in som...Oh, another thing. JPII also really tries, in some general audience homilies, to explain indulgences in a way that, again, places the accent not on a transfer of 'things' (as he puts it) that would pay off debts to justice, so much as it is ordered toward bringing the soul in purgatory closer to the final goal of complete conversion and final expunging of all 'remnants' of sin (the guilt of which has already been forgiven).<BR/><BR/>This seems to me quite in line with the Catechism's approach, and also the approach to purgatory, satisfaction, temporal punishments, etc., that is taken by Peter Kreeft and others.<BR/><BR/>Your description of the point of indulgences and so forth here is very well backed up. At the same time, there seems to be a current effort to understand these things in ways that place the emphasis elsewhere (or, at least, focus attention upon another aspect of them that hasn't historically received as much attention).<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?<BR/><BR/>NealNeal Judisch and Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892594222503490749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-49856176316909317302009-02-03T11:28:00.000-06:002009-02-03T11:28:00.000-06:00Bryan,Excellent essay here; very clear and helpful...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Excellent essay here; very clear and helpful. Just a couple of questions.<BR/><BR/>You mention the 3-fold consequence of sin and include within it the 'corruption of nature'; also, you relate St Thomas' words about the 'disorders' caused by 'guilt'.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering what the relation is between temporal punishment, penance, and restoration to 'full spiritual health', as the Catechism puts it. The emphasis there, and also in recent remarks of Popes Benedict and John Paul II, seems to fall on understanding the penance by means of which we make satisfaction for temporal punishment as being ordered toward rehabilitation, correcting disorders, and so forth, so that the point of satisfaction and expiation is this context is understood at least to involve a putting off of the old man and putting on of the new.<BR/><BR/>I understand that on Aquinas' picture it wouldn't be good to describe this in terms of growing in sanctification, inasmuch as when a person's in a state of grace they are as 'sanctified' or 'holy' as they ever will be. On the other hand, he clearly wants to allow for such things as increase in charity and a gradual setting of the dispositions toward virtue and away from the vice that inflicts us, the corrosive effects of which remain in the soul even after the guilt of sin (the eternal punishment) has been forgiven.<BR/><BR/>Yet the accent in Aquinas' work (perhaps mostly in these sections you've analyzed) falls upon the paying back of temporal debts accumulated through the soul's turning toward mutable goods inordinately, and he doesn't discuss so much the sort of 'healing' and 'growth' that recent Church teaching is apparently trying to emphasize. (I recall, though, that St Thomas does endorse another sense of 'satisfaction' which appears to be ordered toward quelling concupiscence and so forth as well.)<BR/><BR/>So I guess I'm wondering, if we want to approach this in a classical both/and sort of way, is whether we should say that (1) making satisfaction involves paying back a debt owed to justice, irrespective of the interior spiritual health or condition of the penitent, and (2) making satisfaction for sins so as to expiate temporal punishment is also ordered toward the upbuilding and setting of dispositions toward holiness and away from vice, irrespective of juridical debt. I guess what we'd say here is that there is a deontic component and a teleological component here? And that, possibly, when a person makes satisfaction for sins whose guilt (eternal punishment) has been forgiven, either in this life or in purgatory, they are simultaneously remitting the debt to justice and being restored to full spiritual health? <BR/><BR/>Is that okay to say? And, if we say this, are we saying precisely what the Church says magisterially, or are we saying that this (potential) Thomistic construal is consistent with but not required by what the Church herself says magisterially?Neal Judisch and Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06892594222503490749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-52476278970465712842009-02-03T10:56:00.000-06:002009-02-03T10:56:00.000-06:00Bryan,So the eternal punishment for mortal and gra...Bryan,<BR/>So the eternal punishment for mortal and grave sin is removed by Christ alone upon penitence of the will, yet temporal punishment after such repentance requires penance and corrective action of that person's will. But this does not follow all the way, as it seems that the merits of others can then do for that person's temporal punishment (reduce it) above what the person does for himself. So that portion he does not do for himself would be entirely gracious, as it was not reduced or eliminated because of his own penance. So if it can be entirely gracious (to him) in part, why not in full--based on the merits of Christ? I know it's not hard to do, but dear St. Thomas messes with my head :-)<BR/>DarrinCanadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04294619762542082615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-69510424914676100492009-02-03T10:05:00.000-06:002009-02-03T10:05:00.000-06:00Darin,An indulgence is not an act of penance, on t...Darin,<BR/><BR/>An indulgence is not an act of penance, on the part of the penitent. An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt (i.e. eternal punishment) has already been forgiven. A believer can obtain an indulgence under prescribed conditions, from the Church, "which dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints." (CCC glossary) No one can purchase an indulgence. One's debt of temporal punishment can be paid from the treasury of satisfactions of Christ and the saints because we are mystically united in the one body of Christ. So, the satisfactions of Christ and the saints can be applied to oneself, and one can apply such satisfactions to others. But this itself is of no use to the person in mortal sin (i.e. the person whose will is turned away from God), because such a person has not only the debt of temporal punishment, but also and more importantly the debt of eternal punishment. That debt of eternal punishment remains (and continues to be caused) so long as his will is turned away from God. So that debt cannot be paid for him while His debt remains turned away from God. He needs grace by which his will is turned back to God and away from inordinate love of mutable goods. Then, by the merits of Christ his eternal debt is removed. And then the merits of others can be of use to him in reducing his temporal punishment.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-23094349342497549162009-02-03T09:37:00.000-06:002009-02-03T09:37:00.000-06:00Bryan,Interesting stuff. Is an indulgence an act o...Bryan,<BR/>Interesting stuff. Is an indulgence an act of penance? I am wondering why a monetary indulgence for example, could replace penance and contrition. Or what about indulgences on behalf of others? If contrition and a change of the will is required to effect the removal of punishment, how could this be done for someone else?Canadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04294619762542082615noreply@blogger.com