16. There seems to be the
same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair,
uncertainty, and assurance. My comment: I frankly don't know how any person who studied the Church's teaching in any depth could say this. Any era, any time. He should have listened to his confessor, and spiritual director. Any person who is this troubled (because scrupulosity is obvious here) should not have been teaching anyone anything. Personally, I know the feeling. I told a friend years ago, "I feel I should drop out of seminary, so I can figure out who God is." (And that's pretty much what I did.)
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased. My comment: Whatever Purgatory is really like, the debts paid there are judged by the will of God. We cannot, and should not, wish for a respite for anyone in Purgatory, apart from the will of God.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace. My comment: Because Purgatory from time immemorial has been understood as the place where the elect are made perfect, as it is written, "Without holiness, no one shall see the Lord," it should be understood that the doctrine of Purgatory is a settled matter. This is a pointless speculation for someone trained in Sacred Theology. Growth in grace is proper to the time of testing that is this life. A soul judged elect but imperfect does not need to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves. My comment: Again, the starting-points for anyone in theology are the dogmatic declarations of the Church, and the Magisterium in particular. You can believe anything you like, but if you doubt what is de fide, nothing you are doing is authentically catholic. All the great saints tell us not to gauge our spiritual lives by how we may feel at any given moment.
20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself. My comment: I am not aware of any limitation on the Pope's authority to remit canonical penalties, even those lawfully imposed by others. He may choose, for the good of the Church and the individual, not to exercise that power, but any suggestion that he does not have it seems gravely mistaken.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased. My comment: Whatever Purgatory is really like, the debts paid there are judged by the will of God. We cannot, and should not, wish for a respite for anyone in Purgatory, apart from the will of God.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace. My comment: Because Purgatory from time immemorial has been understood as the place where the elect are made perfect, as it is written, "Without holiness, no one shall see the Lord," it should be understood that the doctrine of Purgatory is a settled matter. This is a pointless speculation for someone trained in Sacred Theology. Growth in grace is proper to the time of testing that is this life. A soul judged elect but imperfect does not need to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves. My comment: Again, the starting-points for anyone in theology are the dogmatic declarations of the Church, and the Magisterium in particular. You can believe anything you like, but if you doubt what is de fide, nothing you are doing is authentically catholic. All the great saints tell us not to gauge our spiritual lives by how we may feel at any given moment.
20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself. My comment: I am not aware of any limitation on the Pope's authority to remit canonical penalties, even those lawfully imposed by others. He may choose, for the good of the Church and the individual, not to exercise that power, but any suggestion that he does not have it seems gravely mistaken.
Comments
Also, Luther agreed with you: he did not want to teach early on. He was very uncertain about teaching when he felt so uncertain, but his "spiritual director" (the vicar general) insisted that he teach. So, if one should follow church authority, he should have been teaching.
Luther certainly wasn't the only one dismayed -- Erasmus and the humanists were, too. While Trent would standardize much of Thomistic theology, we have to remember the theological schools were leaning strongly to Biel's theological method.
Like I said, Luther isn't responding to ideal Catholic theology -- he is attacking bad theology that normal people were actually being taught and the church wasn't trying to fight.