Skip to main content

95 Theses, Part III, The Search For Crock

11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep. My comment: I have no idea what penalties he might be talking about, but Purgatory probably isn't a party in the first place.

12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition. My comment: Penances are not, strictly speaking, tests for contrition. They relate to satisfaction for the temporal (real world consequences) of our sins. The vertical aspect of them is pardoned by the priest acting in the person of Christ. In other words, "the former days" were screwed up from the hop, if that is a true representation of them.

13. Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them. My comment: Except for particular Judgment, and (hopefully) Purgatory. (or not)

14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least. My comment: Is this an objection, or a random pastoral comment? Those with moral certainty (and not an unreasonable expectation of certain knowledge in the absence of a private revelation) have no reason to fear.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair. My comment: Purgatory is not about despair; it's about hope. If you go to Purgatory, you win! Purgatory is only for the elect. 







Comments

Historically speaking, you have to remember Luther was not responding to the best, most beautiful forms of doctrine, but rather to the preaching that preachers like Tetzel were authorized (by the church) to do. Luther still thinks of himself as Catholic here, so when he frames something incorrectly with regard to modern Catholic theology, some of that is the lack of clarity pre-Trent and some of that is popular distortions of theology being taught by parish priests and itinerants.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un