An Apologetic Response to Rome's constitution

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:6-9

"Blessed are the pure (καθαρός) in heart: for they shall see God."
Matthew 5:8

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished' (τελέω): and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
John 19:30
___________

In the ongoing debate about whether or not Continuing Anglicans ought to regard the issuance of Anglicanorum Coetibus as some great opportunity, it seems to have occurred to none of the TAC/ACA leaders who favor taking the route to Rome, that theological objections could be raised. Most of their arguments have been along the lines of misusing words from John 17:21 ("that they all may be one"), as if a small group of people leaving one denomination for another has eschatological and Messianic significance, and constitutes a moral imperative to get with their program.

The pressure thus put on their people is based on the absurd notion that joining the Roman Catholic Church will somehow correct all of the outward and political (in the proper sense of the word, about "polity") disunity that has divided the Church since 1054 AD. Leaving aside unrealistic appeals to mere sentimentality, and looking at objective facts, the consequences of becoming Roman Catholic can be detrimental, especially if it is for dubious reasons that fall short of genuine conviction and persuasion that compel each individual conscience to believe all of the Papal claims, including the full weight of Roman Catholic doctrine. If that doctrine is flawed, especially in matters to do with the Gospel (the question we shall examine), then submission to Rome is a price no Continuing Anglican ought to pay and that no honest person can afford; that is, unless and until the theological issues have been resolved.

If, indeed, one considers the consensus of the Church Catholic to be infallible, it is only right to remind such a person that the present separation between the Communion of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church begs the question of consensus, and makes the pressure to get with the program for unity's sake all the more spurious. But, instead of theological discussion, those who push for hasty acceptance of Rome's "offer" distract us with matters of polity.

If the interpretation (indeed the "spin") that they render to Anglicanorum Coetibus were accurate, such as their wild claims about what the document actually says and means concerning the future of married clergy under whatever ordinariates may become established, we would still protest on theological grounds that the Faith itself is more pure and true as recovered in our Anglican heritage than in what Rome teaches and practices. That their interpretation of Anglicanorum Coetibus is, beyond doubt, entirely wrong,1 whether from ignorance or dishonesty, remains the case. However, it is of secondary importance. More to the point, conversion to Roman Catholicism requires one to embrace theological errors that touch on the Gospel.

What would unity require?

Richard Hooker held out hope for unity, someday, with the See of Rome. Unlike the Continental European churches of the Reformation, the English did not write off Rome as hopelessly Antichrist, or beyond reform. So wrote Hooker:

We hope therefore that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still. Other difference between our estate before and now we know none but only such as we see in Juda; which having sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. If Ephraim “be joined unto idols,” the counsel of the Prophet is, “Let him alone.” “If Israel play the harlot, let not Juda sin.” “If it seem evil unto you,” saith Josua, “to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods whom your fathers served beyond the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell: but I and mine house will serve the Lord.” The indisposition therefore of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.

Notwithstanding so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies but in another beloved of God; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in any thing, but that we “all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour,” whose Church we are.2

We may ask whether or not the situation has changed from the time of Richard Hooker to such a degree that theological issues no longer divide us from Rome. The answer is complicated, but not unclear.

The first and obvious difference has to do with the papacy itself. Although Roman Catholic apologists are unwavering, and no doubt sincere, in their assertion of contrived and manipulated selection of evidence that is essential to their doctrine, we cannot accept the doctrine Rome has developed about their local episcopate. That Rome had, among the Patriarchates, a primacy of honor recognized in the Second, Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, is without doubt. The evidence shows, however, when all is weighed together, that this honor was based on two things: The reputation that the Church of Rome had in ancient times for doctrinal clarity and purity, and the association of the capital city with an empire that had become identified (some might argue too closely) with the Church itself. That Constantinople ranked as a second "Equal" in honor is only further evidence of the imperial significance.

That the Tome of Leo was followed by the bishops at Chalcedon saying, "Peter has spoken through Leo," takes its modern significance from a retroactive perspective. Modern readers, after centuries of hearing about "the See of Peter"-- a phrase that applies equally to Antioch-- cannot appreciate the satisfaction expressed by learned men that apostolic doctrine had been well presented. So, to take their approbation of the Tome as a Church doctrine that informs our interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"), is historical nonsense. The Book of Acts informs our interpretation. That Peter was the man whose preaching and leadership unlocked the ministry of the Church and proved instrumental in establishing it in its earliest period, proves to be a historical fact, recorded in that book written by St. Luke. We see no honest way to read back into Matthew 16 the current claims of the papacy. Nothing is said there about Peter himself beyond the events that would unfold in the early portion of the Book of Acts, and certainly nothing about his alleged successors in the See of Rome. In the earliest days the Lord used St. Peter; later, He used St. Paul above any others, as it pleased Him.

The Patriarchates proved useful in the organization of the ancient Church, but unlike Apostolic Succession itself, the system does not appear to be necessary as a permanent structure, and does not appear to have been handed down by revelation as a practice recorded in Scripture. Apostolic Succession was practiced while the New Testament was being written, as the Pastoral Epistles most clearly demonstrate (i.e., to Timothy and Titus), and has the color of authority to it as a practice revealed by God. But, Patriarchates as a system, and the Roman claim to Universal Primacy specifically, do not have any authority to which we can attach the revelation of God in Scripture. Nonetheless, even if we grant some permanence to the Patriarchates, the Great Schism of 1054 AD demonstrates that the claims of Rome persist only by the insistence of Rome itself, not by Scripture, and, for those who value it, not by universal consensus either.

Gospel Imperative

But, as much as Rome has reformed herself in some very important matters, including its strides forward with Lutherans on the question of Justification, her bondage to precedent has caused a major error to persist to this day. Furthermore, added to the claims of Universal Primacy as an executive role, rejected by the Universal Church in 1054 (a fact beyond the reach of reasonable dispute), Rome's modern twist on Church Infallibility that led to the identification of that idea solely with the Bishop and Patriarch of Rome himself in 1870, has made true and necessary reform impossible. It will be impossible until Rome is able to confess the truth that she has erred in the past, and is able by that confession of obvious fact, to renounce one heresy in particular. And, until Rome can bring itself to reform its doctrine to the level we must insist on for the sake of the Gospel, we cannot in good conscience throw away our Anglican heritage to come under her rule.

Their own doctrine of Infallibility stands in the way. It was contrived honestly, to bind popes to a body of doctrine that cannot be altered by any man's whims (indeed, contrived because they did not believe any pope to be infallible by his office and some alleged charism, but rather it was intended to hold each pope to what was handed down to him). But, instead of binding the papacy to teach pure doctrine, it has prevented necessary reform by its very nature.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church that was established under the Papal Imprimatur of John-Paul II, we see that bondage to precedent has created self-contradiction on one and the same page that teaches, properly, that only through Christ do we have atonement and the forgiveness of sins, and yet nonetheless reiterates the doctrine of the Treasury. That is, it reiterates a medieval heresy that turns everyone's attention from Christ and His Gospel to a man made religious system of salvation.

In that system, salvation from sin and death fades into insignificance, overshadowed by seeking time off from Purgatory, and doing so by applying a form of credit called "merits" that one receives from saints who supposedly earned them. These merits can be applied by the Church to the account of sinners so that they may be relieved of "temporal punishment" for their sins, released early from a punitive Purgatory, and allowed into the presence of God for the ultimate joy of the Beatific Vision.

"What's wrong with the idea of someone using his credit on someone else's behalf?" we are asked. It sounds so reasonable, especially when tortured logic elevates this abominable theory to the level of revelation from God, to the level of dogma. The answer is, everything is wrong with it.

First of all, if there is any truth to the idea of a Purgatorio, it is the idea of being made "pure in heart" so that we may see God. The Beatitude, in the Beatific Vision, is "Blessed are the pure (καθαρός) in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8) But, if the issue goes from purification to punishment, evening the scales of justice, then the end result is bypassed also, and fades into insignificance. Instead of purity of heart, we have the pound of flesh.

Secondly, the scriptures set forth something very different, salvation from sin and death that only Christ could purchase for us, because no one else has the funds with which to pay for our sins, namely, true sinlessness of His own, true purity in himself. If the Epistle to the Hebrews does not clarify this for you, then you have no hope.

Now where remission of these [i.e. sins] is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (Heb. 10:18-22)

The Gospel teaches us to look into eternity and to face mortality without fear, unless we persist willfully in sin.

But, if we believe that the saints have merits, instead of believing that saints are those who have received mercy and grace, and if we believe they may spend these merits on our behalf, then what do we make of the words of Jesus, words he spoke just before dying? "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished' (τελέω): and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

That one word τελέω [pronounced teleō], translated into three English words ("it is finished"), was stamped on every receipt for every account once it was fully paid. and not at all before. It cannot be translated, "it is mostly paid." It must be translated, "It is paid in full."

The Gospel of merits and the Treasury cannot stand with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Popes are bound by this medieval doctrine, created by the tortured logic of human imagination or demonic influence, if not both (And, just to correct the record, long before the English Reformers rejected it, it was regarded as error by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and so it has never had the consensus of which some have boasted). Punitive Purgatorio, saintly merits as credits, time off from an imagined sentence of temporal punishments that makes a mockery of forgiveness and of Christ's cross, combine into a false gospel

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1: 7-9)

To be bound by precedent is not the same as fidelity to the truth that God has revealed. But, for those who cannot fathom that the See of Rome could have erred, remember Paul's words include even the Apostles themselves. For, in the words, "but though we," it is the Apostles of whom he wrote. In short, no one has any authority to preach another gospel.

Until Rome can say that Christ, and Christ alone, paid the debt in full, we must remain where we are.
___________
1. Everything to do with the subject of married clergy in the new constitution and norms, begins with these conditions:

"VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1."

Too much has been made by the followers of John Hepworth over words they see in § 2, "a case by case basis." In this, Hepworth and his spokesmen rely on common ignorance, inasmuch as the existing Pastoral Provisions are, also, on a case by case basis and have been so all along. Nothing is new in this, and the conditions are not thereby altered or removed. Only converts, "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfil the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates."

Where facts cannot prevail, rumors have been introduced, Recently, I received correspondence from one of Hepworth's duped followers in which it was insisted that a man who was a layman in an "Anglican Use" parish of the Roman Catholic Church, and who was married, has been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. I asked for the name and contact information of the priest in question, and for news reports about this historical event. I was told there were no news reports. I responded that it seems more than incredible that the first ordination of a married man in over eight hundred years, in the Roman Catholic Church (not in what is called loosely a "Uniate" or an "Eastern Rite" church), was not considered newsworthy by any paper, magazine, TV, radio or internet news outlet, even though such an event would constitute history. I suggested that someone was telling a lie, and that my correspondent had bought it. I have yet to hear back from him with any of the details--no surprise.

2. Richard Hooker: The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book III, I, 10

INDULGE ME

“The good news is we’re not selling them [indulgences] anymore.”
-The Rev. Tom Reese, Jesuit priest.

Having just returned from a few quiet days in rural Maryland at the Maryland Military Department Chaplains’ Conference, I was blissfully unaware of the storm clouds roiling over the blogosphere. The viciousness of the public attack upon this corner of e-Christendom by soon-to-be-former Anglicans and their fellow travelers has been only equaled by the outrageousness of some of their private shenanigans. It is an effort by professed Christians that I can only place in the category of “ultra-Montanist convert rant.”

Even the most tenacious of my Roman Catholic colleagues in academe-and there are some pretty tenacious ones among our “posse”-do not plumb these depths. Indeed, I can say that not once in nearly seven years pursuing various Pontifical degrees have I ever been treated to behavior such as that exhibited by certain bloggers. Such is the nature of the convert—or at least some converts.

It was this sort of attitude that led a similarly zealous individual to pop round to my grandmother’s house where they were mourning the sudden childhood death of my uncle Jack. The well-meaning and tearful Roman Catholic convert lady expressed her condolences, particularly since the departed child “was burning in Hell” having died outside of the Church. Shocking? Yes. Commonplace “in the day”? Of course. And today?

Well, today there is a particular ugliness to one side of the debate that is reminiscent of the days of Fr. Feeney’s peculiar take on extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Here’s a bit of cautionary Roman Catholic trivia for any wannabe Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to take into account. What happened on 13 February 1953? (Hint: Fr. Feeney wasn’t a happy camper!) First to give the correct answer will receive a special Indulgence for yourself or a loved one.

This brings us to the clever segue to the topic of this column.

The Curse

One curse of having served in the Continuum for any length of time is having seen so many characters come and go-frequently transiting through the law courts. There are alleged continuing Anglicans who are now Episcopalian apologists, having mined the faithful for all they could. There have been grifters, grafters, frauds, fakes, “Angricans” and outright criminals, well-turned out by C.M. Almy, Wippell and the like. There has been denominational drift along a whole spectrum, frequently one step ahead of sheriffs and receivers. All of these characters takes attention away from the incredible work that actually has been done for Christ Jesus in the Continuum for thirty-plus years.

Another curse is that these folks like to write letters and, more recently, e-mails. Lots of e-mails. Apart from the mundane and banal (which many are), there are veritable trenchers of steaming e-mails served up for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, vendetta or an admixture of the two. Many of them have washed up on my own electronic shore and, like a variety of deformed seashell or, for fans of The Simpsons, the three-eyed fish spawned near the nuclear plant. I have collected them all and, from-time to-time, savored re-reading these epistles which range from the fantastic to the petty. Perhaps I read too much late nineteenth-century English literature and derive a peculiar fascination for such things. However, the current debate warrants a brief exposition as a segue to the segue.

What Is Meant

On June 26, 2009, the following drifted in over the electronic transom and wafted gently to the virtual floor:

The ‘coherent theological vision’ of the Traditional Anglican Communion is to be found in the copy of the Catechism signed by the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and the text that elucidates their intention in signing, to be found in a separate document. And it is what the bishops teach, in union with the Bishop of Rome and catholic bishops in communion with him, that is where the faith of the Church is to be found. There can be doubt and trouble elsewhere in the Church, but the yardstick is the teaching of the Holy Father – and we are blessed to have in a single volume the teaching of this Holy Father, in glorious continuity with bishops of Rome before him, but lucid on the unique problems of our moment. And that is the yardstick that the Traditional Anglican Communion bishops adopted, and which they are taking to their people. Progress differs from place to place – some parishes in North America have purchased several hundred copies of the Catechism and have weekly studies, others are at the “pondering” stage, but all will be well...

This is the statement of Abp. John Hepworth who was having trouble posting it to an e-mail list and sent it around to a number of people in lieu of posting. From the text, both in italics and not, I think it fair to say that the TAC leadership has embraced the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the “yardstick” of faith, adopted and “taken to the people” by the bishops.

This is not the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer, or the innumerable and oftentimes very useful catechisms written by Anglicans such as A.G. Mortimer, or even a catechism of the TAC’s own choosing. No. It is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a comprehensive, weighty, but non-Anglican work. This is the benchmark for understanding the faith promulgated by TAC’s bishops.

Make no mistake. This is a most-valuable document and resource. However, let’s be clear who’s in control. “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.” CCC 816. This would be the Roman Catholic Church in case anyone missed it.

And the rest? “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” As if translation were necessary, the plain language is that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church (again, that would be the Roman Catholic Church) which is his Body. CCC 846. And, bluntly, “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

At a minimum, this means that, if you accept the proposition that “the [Roman] Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ”, your very salvation is at risk by refusing to enter in to it. So, why is there a wait? Why delegations and bargaining and maneuvering? If this is the measure and you haven’t crossed, you had better be looking both ways before stepping off the curb as it might be a very long, very warm drop.

So it is in the land of the special deal, the secret arrangement and the hidden interpretation of Apostolic Constitutions, doctrinal statements and the occasional Encyclical. This reluctance, though, is nothing more than “cafeteria Catholicism”-a Burger King faith built on “have it your way.” And the Apostolic Constitution as has been repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere doesn’t allow for “hold the pickles, hold the relish” special orders. You get the burger just as advertised, or you are the one on the eternal grill.

And just what is that “our” way? Let’s take a look at one of these key elements of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to which you will have to accede, but which have caused spiritual heartburn: The Indulgence.

Talkin’ Tetzel

Many will dimly recall a trigger point in the Protestant Reformation from their church history lessons. Johann Tetzel (1465–1519) was a Dominican preacher accused of selling indulgences. We know him from the couplet attributed to him, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings/the soul from purgatory springs.” In 1517, Tetzel was trying to raise money for the ongoing reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica, and it is believed that Martin Luther was inspired to write his Ninety-Five Theses, in part, due to Tetzel's actions during this period of time.

And what precisely is an indulgence? According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and perform penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Roman Catholic could receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or messy sacrament of confession and penance.

Tetzel seemed the very image of the ecclesiastical huckster. He had early discovered his vocation as a preacher of indulgences; he combined the elocutionary gifts of a revivalist orator with the shrewdness of an auctioneer. He painted in lurid colors the terrors of purgatory, while he dwelt on the cheapness of the indulgence which would purchase remission and his prices were lowered as each sale approached its end. It’s not a struggle to find such characters haunting the modern blogosphere or even in the episcopate-“lurid pictures” and “special conditions” being a common theme.

In any event, Tetzel’s efforts were thought to have “irretrievably damaged the complicated and abstruse Catholic doctrine on the subject of indulgences.” The storm caused by Luther’s criticism, overwhelmed poor Tetzel, and even “sober Catholics” felt that his vulgar extravagances had prejudiced Catholic doctrine. He hid himself in the Dominican convent at Leipzig in fear of popular violence, and died there on the 4th of July 1519. As a result of the whole mess, the Roman Catholic Church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567. Thank God for small mercies. But, that’s not the end of the story.

They’re Baaaack!

In October, 1999, the Christian Century reported that the Vatican had released a new edition of the Manual of Indulgences. According to a French-language news agency in Fribourg, Switzerland, Agence de presse internationale catholique, “This manual of a hundred pages, published by the Apostolic Penitencery, the Vatican body responsible for matters of conscience, explains in 33 points the concrete methods for remission of sins--by prayer, receiving the sacraments, works of charity and acts of penance.”

Speaking in Rome earlier on September 17, 1999, Cardinal William Wakefield Baum, the Vatican’s leading authority on indulgences, said that they “are a structural element of Jubilee years.” He added that indulgences, correctly understood and piously performed, are a vital part of the continuous process of sanctification with which supernatural life is identified on earth.

Vatican theologian and Croatian Jesuit priest, Ivan Fucek, punctuated the statements following the release of the manual opining that Catholic doctrines on indulgences and purgatory, approved by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, constitute a doctrine “of faith” and therefore are not up for discussion. Does everyone understand that? Not up for discussion. There are no special deals, secret arrangements or doctrinal waivers.

How Do They…Um…Work?

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one, but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

The doctrine to which converting Anglicans must accede, and to which TAC bishops already have agreed is this. In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth…” CCC 1475 In this exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. “Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.” So, we are talking about a more prompt and efficacious expiation of sin by “borrowing a cup of holiness” from saints who have more than they need.

But, we call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury. CCC 1476. “This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body.” CCC 1477. An indulgence is obtained through the Church who intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. CCC 1478.

So, because the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted. And we get these by dipping into the spiritual piggy bank maintained by the Church, move a few thousand years from one corner of the cosmic ledger to another and, there we are.

An Anglo-Catholic Perspective

In looking at the question of indulgences, I consulted our substantive Anglican patrimony-a patrimony either deliberately overlooked or simply deliberately ignored by some purported Anglo-Catholic cognoscenti. The Rev. Francis J. Hall (a/k/a the “Anglican Aquinas”) not surprisingly had much to say on the subject. In his monumental ten volume Dogmatic Theology, Fr. Hall considered the matter in the context of the larger issue of purgatory. Hall was of the view that even the saved, pardoned though they be, must "pay the last farthing" of penalty for sin before the scales of divine justice could be brought to their necessary final balance. However, he is clear on the notion that “sufferings inflicted by God are wholly reformatory and purificatory, ceasing when repentance is achieved, is not Christian.” It does not agree with the analogies of divine providence in this world.

However, Hall cautioned that Divine forgiveness does not exempt us from suffering sufficiently for our sins. For example, if a pardoned sinner suffering execution for murder, but dying penitent, has not fully endured the requirements of divine penal justice, it is reasonable to think that he will suffer sufficient some temporary penalty after death. “But”, according to Hall, “a qualifying consideration, already laid down in treating of purificatory suffering after death, has to be safeguarded. That is, we must not so conceive of suffering in Purgatory, whether purificatory or penal, as to nullify the scriptural description of the faithful departed as comforted and at peace.” In, short, these are matters of Divine justice and committed to God.

Now, here’s the real rub: a second limitation is that we should not even seem to estimate the penalties for pardoned sin in quantitative terms, as if each species of offence had a determinate amount of punishment assigned to it, as in human criminal law.”

Divine justice takes all things into account, and has preeminently a moral equation and personal character in view. We are not able to boil that down into quantitative or temporal terms, as if there were some cosmic menu of offenses and sentences that can be applied.

As Hall noted, the just punishment of a given sin will necessarily be governed in each several case by its punitive effect and significance for the individual involved; and this depends upon subjective susceptibilities, for which there can be no quantitative standard of measure. When divine justice has been sufficiently vindicated punishment will end. True justice is not vindictive. Accordingly, the suggestion involved in granting so many “days” or “years” of indulgences from purgatorial penalties is clearly erroneous and harmful. We just do not get to make the call on Divine justice.

Carried over into the practice of granting indulgences, interpreted though it be by theologians as meaning that the Church pledges itself to pray for the relief of the souls in Purgatory in whose behalf they are granted, has led to another erroneous supposition — that of a treasury of merits which the Church's prayers can make available for reducing purgatorial penalties.

Hall is succinct on the point that, “merits cannot be transferred either in possession or in effect from one person to another, and no saint's merits are personally superfluous in amount.” There is no warrant for a “Divine piggy bank of merits” that can be traded upon, swapped or sold…sorry…given in exchange for the gift of a new wing on the parish hall by the Church or anyone else.

This “assertion is not weakened by our acknowledging, as we do, that holy souls have great power in prayer and in their interaction through the mystical Body of Christ upon the souls of others.” Our prayers for the departed are somehow surely useful. As we would pray for one another in this present life, so too may we pray for those who have entered the larger life. (And, we hope, they are praying for us and with us.). “But the result in reducing the sufferings of souls in Purgatory, if, as we think, there are such sufferings, cannot without misleading effect be expressed in the terms which we have been criticizing.”

Indulge Me-A Contest

This particular piece continues a series of articles I began with the writings of Bp. Charles Grafton, to whom we will return from time to time. My aim is to examine and exposit those issues which differentiate the Anglo-Catholic position from that of the Roman Catholic Church. The point here is not to denigrate those soon-to-be-former Anglicans for whom the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is now (and perhaps always was) their “yardstick”. Judging from the venom that has come from certain quarters, I believe that any position other than utter “submission” to borrow a Newmanian term, will suffice. Certainly, the avowed position of those who have converted and their bishops renders Anglican apologetic of any sort problematic.

So be it. Our task is to be clear in our own positions, and to let those who might be lulled or gulled into believing that the plain language of Catechisms, Constitutions and Encyclicals does not mean what it says. To maintain otherwise is nothing more than post-modernist linguistic technique at it basest form.

Now to capitalize on one of the best attributes of this particular forum—the knowledge and erudition of our readers and “commentators.” Not to lead you all into the sin of pride, but we have some fairly robust discussions, and, I confess that I enjoy reading the readers’ comments as much as writing the articles. So, indulge this columnist and proffer your thoughts on the topic of indulgences and the treasury of merits. We’ll review them, and our impartial panel of judges will award special prize to the best among them: First Place Winner will receive 1000 years “good time” and Runner-Up 500 years off. Those simply quoting “the Magisterium” or the Thirty-Nine Articles will have 1000 years added on…to be served in Newark.