Indulgences and Satisfaction
The Catholic
Archdiocese of Philadelphia recently announced that it would
celebrate its bicentennial by offering
indulgences (decree).
Philadelphia is home to one of the oldest Lutheran seminaries,
and
a newspaper report noted that the Lutheran theologians were
upset, seeing this as incompatible with the 1999
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
John Reumann, a professor at the Lutheran Theological
Seminary at Philadelphia, said last week that Catholics'
continued use of indulgences had "negative consequences" for
the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,
which the Vatican and Lutheran World Federation signed in
1999.
In that document - which took 30 years to negotiate -
both churches agreed that salvation is achieved "by grace
alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of
any merit on our part."
Good works do not earn grace, it continues, but are
evidence of one's state of grace.
"From a Lutheran point of view, one would wish that Roman
Catholics would downplay, if not eliminate, indulgences,
especially in view of the possibility of their misuse and
misunderstanding," said Lutheran theologian William G. Rusch.
Rusch, a former director of ecumenical affairs for the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, helped develop the
declaration and was a major contributor.
The "continued use of indulgences in and of itself does
break the agreement," he told The Inquirer in an e-mail.
They shouldn't have been so surprised. Indulgences are taught
in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, were offered
by Pope John Paul II for the Jubilee Year of 2000 in
Incarnationis Mysterium, and a fourth edition of the
Enchiridion Indulgentiarum was released in 1999--the
same year the Catholic Church was telling Lutherans that the
matter of justification by faith had been resolved.
Contemporary Catholic teaching on indulgences appears in the
1967 letter of Pope Paul VI,
Indulgentiarum Doctrina; among the authorities he
cited--Pope Leo X, including
Exsurge Domine, his 1520 bull condemning Martin Luther.
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken much of a "hermeneutic of
continuity," arguing that Vatican 2 did not change Catholic
teaching, and that the prior teaching of the Church is to be
assumed as still valid; this is another good illustration of
that.
The root of the Catholic understanding of indulgences is that
your sin may be forgiven by God, but you still have a price to
pay, called "temporal punishment." You either pay this now, or
later (or get it remitted through an indulgence). Regardless,
the point is the same: You still have a debt to pay. Christ
didn't pay it all for you--he didn't make complete satisfaction
for your sins.
Here's how the
Baltimore Catechism explained it:
Q. 629. What punishments are due to actual sins?
A. Two punishments are due to actual sins: one, called
the eternal, is inflicted in hell; and the other, called the
temporal, is inflicted in this world or in purgatory. The
Sacrament of Penance remits or frees us from the eternal
punishment and generally only from part of the temporal.
Prayer, good works and indulgences in this world and the
sufferings of purgatory in the next remit the remainder of
the temporal punishment.
Q. 630. Why is there a double punishment attached to
actual sins?
A.There is a double punishment attached to actual sins,
because in their commission there is a double guilt:
(1) Of insulting God and of turning away from Him;
(2) Of depriving Him of the honor we owe Him, and of
turning to His enemies.
Q. 803. Does not the Sacrament of Penance remit all
punishment due to sin?
A. The Sacrament of Penance remits the eternal punishment
due to sin, but it does not always remit the temporal
punishment which God requires as satisfaction for our sins.
Q. 804. Why does God require a temporal punishment as
a satisfaction for sin?
A. God requires a temporal punishment as a satisfaction
for sin to teach us the great evil of sin and to prevent us
from falling again.
Q. 805. Which are the chief means by which we satisfy
God for the temporal punishment due to sin?
A. The chief means by which we satisfy God for the
temporal punishment due to sin are: Prayer, Fasting,
Almsgiving; all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and
the patient suffering of the ills of life.
Here's how the teaching is put in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of
the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a
double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion
with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life,
the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of
sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an
unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified
either here on earth, or after death in the state called
Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called
the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must
not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God
from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.
A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can
attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way
that no punishment would remain.83
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of
communion with God entail the remission of the eternal
punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.
While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds
and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the
Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of
sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and
charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of
penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on
the "new man."84
Satisfaction
Believe it or not, the 1999
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by
the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation made no mention of
either indulgences or of temporal punishment
(neither did the explanatory
Common Statement and
Annex, which were also signed at the same time). It should
come as no surprise, therefore, that these documents are equally
silent on the related subject of satisfaction.
These matters are addressed, however, in critiques of
the Joint Declaration by those Lutherans who did not agree with
the Joint Declaration. The
LCMS response, for instance, made the following statements:
9. Accordingly, JDDJ does not address itself directly to
disputed beliefs and practices such as the “meritorious”
value of good works, purgatory, indulgences, the papacy, the
significance of the saints, devotion to Mary, and so forth.
Lutherans cannot speak of consensus on justification as long
as these related issues remain unsettled.
The issues related to indulgences (including satisfaction and
temporal punishment) were at the heart of the Reformation!
Luther's
95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences of 1517
were the spark that lit the powder keg. How could this be
overlooked?
Luther's
Babylonian Captivity of the Church of 1520 attacked the
sacramental system of the Church. His basic insight was that
sacraments are not works that we offer to God, but "visible
words" by which the Gospel is proclaimed to us.
Hence it is a manifest and wicked error to offer or apply
masses for sins, for satisfactions, for the dead, or for any
necessity whatsoever of one's own or of others. You will
readily see the obvious truth of this if you but hold firmly
that the mass is a divine promise, which can profit no one,
be applied to no one, intercede for no one, and be
communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a
faith of his own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of
another, the promise of God, which demands the personal
faith of every individual? Can I give to another what God
has promised, even if he does not believe? Can I believe for
another, or cause another to believe? But this is what I
must do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to
others. For there are but two things in the mass — the
promise of God, and the faith of man which takes that which
the promise offers. But if it is true that I can do this,
then I can also hear and believe the Gospel for others, I
can be baptised for another, I can be absolved from sins for
another, I can also partake of the Sacrament of the Altar
for another, and — to run the gamut of their sacraments also
— I can marry a wife for another, be ordained for another,
receive confirmation and extreme unction for another!
Pope Leo X condemned Luther in his 1520 bull,
Exsurge Domine--in particular, Luther's views on
indulgences and satisfaction.
But none of this was touched on in the Joint Declaration. So,
I wonder, how could it have resolved the issues of the
Reformation if it never discussed them?!
Let's now look at this matter of satisfaction, starting with
citation from official Catholic sources.
First, the
Council of Trent:
... [T]he holy Synod declares, that it is wholly false,
and alien from the word of God, that the guilt is never
forgiven by the Lord, without the whole punishment also
being therewith pardoned. ... And truly the nature of
divine justice seems to demand, that they, who through
ignorance have sinned before baptism, be received into grace
in one manner; and in another those who, after having been
freed from the servitude of sin and of the devil, and after
having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not feared,
knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to grieve the
Holy Spirit. And it beseems the divine clemency, that sins
be not in such wise pardoned us without any satisfaction, as
that, taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less
grievous, we, offering as it were an insult and an outrage
to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins,
treasuring up wrath against the Jay of wrath. .. Add to
these things, that, whilst we thus, by making satisfaction,
suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Jesus
Christ, who satisfied for our sins, from whom all our
sufficiency is; having also thereby a most sure pledge, that
if we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him.
But neither is this satisfaction, which we discharge for our
sins, so our own, as not to be through Jesus Christ. For we
who can do nothing of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do all
things, He cooperating, who strengthens us. ... [N]o
Catholic ever thought, by this kind of satisfactions on our
parts, the efficacy of the merit and of the satisfaction of
our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured, or in any way
lessened...
The Synod teaches furthermore, that so great is the
liberality of the divine munificence, that we are able
through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father,
not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken of ourselves
for the punishment of sin, or by those imposed at the
discretion of the priest according to the measure of our
delinquency, but also, which is a very great proof of love,
by the temporal scourges inflicted of God, and borne
patiently by us.us.
Here's the
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Satisfaction is the full payment of a debt; for that is
sufficient or satisfactory to which nothing is wanting.
Hence, when we speak of reconciliation to favour, to satisfy
means to do what is sufficient to atone to the angered mind
for an injury offered; and in this sense satisfaction is
nothing more than compensation for an injury done to
another. But, to come to the object that now engages us,
theologians make use of the word satisfaction to signify the
compensation man makes, by offering to God some reparation
for the sins he has committed. ...
The first and highest degree of satisfaction is that by
which whatever we owe to God on account of our sins is paid
abundantly, even though He should deal with us according to
the strictest rigour of His justice. This degree of
satisfaction appeases God and renders Him propitious to us;
and it is a satisfaction for which we are indebted to Christ
our Lord alone, who paid the price of our sins on the cross,
and offered to God a superabundant satisfaction. No created
being could have been of such worth as to deliver us from so
heavy a debt. He is the propitiation for our sins, says St.
John, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole
world. This satisfaction, therefore, is full and
superabundant, perfectly adequate to the debt of all sins
committed in this world. It gives to man's actions great
worth before God, and without it they would be deserving of
no esteem whatever. This David seems to have had in view
when, having asked himself, what shall I render to the Lord,
for all the things that he hath rendered to me? and finding
nothing besides this satisfaction, which he expressed by the
word chalice, a worthy return for so many and such great
favours, he replied: I will take the chalice of salvation,
and I will call upon the name of the Lord.
There is another kind of satisfaction, which is called
canonical, and is performed within a certain fixed period of
time. Hence, according to the most ancient practice of the
Church, when penitents are absolved from their sins, some
penance is imposed, the performance of which is commonly
called satisfaction.on.
By the same name is called any sort of punishment endured
for sin, although not imposed by the priest, but
spontaneously undertaken and performed by ourselves. ...
This, however, does not belong to Penance as a Sacrament.
Only that satisfaction constitutes part of the Sacrament
which, as we have already said, is offered to God for sins
at the command of the priest. Furthermore, it must be
accompanied by a deliberate and firm purpose carefully to
avoid sin for the future.
For to satisfy, as some define it, is to pay due honour
to God: and this, it is evident, no person can do, who is
not entirely resolved to avoid sin. Again, to satisfy is to
cut off all occasions of sin, and to close every avenue
against its suggestions. In accordance with this idea of
satisfaction some have defined it as a cleansing, which
effaces whatever defilement may remain in the soul from the
stains of sin, and which exempts us from the temporal
chastisements due to sin. ...
Such being the nature of satisfaction, it will not be
difficult to convince the faithful of the necessity imposed
on the penitent of performing works of satisfaction. They
are to be taught that sin carries in its train two evils,
the stain and the punishment. Whenever the stain is effaced,
the punishment of eternal death is forgiven with the guilt
to which it was due; yet, as the Council of Trent declares,
the remains of sin and the temporal punishment are not
always remitted. ......
Why in the Sacrament of Penance, as in that of Baptism,
the punishment due to sin is not entirely remitted is
admirably explained in these words of the Council of Trent:
Divine justice seems to require that they who through
ignorance sinned before Baptism, should recover the
friendship of God in a different manner from those who,
after they have been freed from the thraldom, of sin and the
devil and have received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, dread
not knowingly to violate the temple of God and grieve the
Holy Spirit. It is also in keeping with the divine mercy not
to remit our sins without any satisfaction, lest, taking
occasion hence, and imagining our sins less grievous than
they are, we should become injurious, as it were, and
contumelious to the Holy Ghost, and should fall into greater
enormities, treasuring up to ourselves wrath against the day
of wrath. These satisfactory penances have, no doubt, great
influence in recalling from and, as it were, bridling
against sin, and in rendering the sinner more vigilant and
cautious for the future. ...
Furthermore (these satisfactions) serve as testimonies of
our sorrow for sin committed, and thus atone to the Church
which is grievously insulted by our crimes. God, says St.
Augustine, despises not a contrite and humble heart; but, as
heartfelt grief is generally concealed from others, and is
not manifested by words or other signs, wisely, therefore,
are penitential times appointed by those who preside over
the Church, in order to atone to the Church, in which sins
are forgiven. ......
Again, by undergoing these penances we are made like unto
Jesus Christ our Head, inasmuch as He Himself suffered and
was tempted....
Finally, the punishment which the sinner endures disarms
the vengeance of God and averts the punishments decreed
against us. ...
Nor does this lessen the most perfect and superabundant
satisfaction of Christ our Lord, but, on the contrary,
renders it still more conspicuous and illustrious. For the
grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it
communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of
Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid
in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can
be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good
actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually
infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by
charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through
the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and
follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit,
nor can we at all satisfy God.
Hence it is that nothing seems wanting to the just.
Through their works done by the power of God, they are able,
on the one hand, to satisfy God's law, as far as their human
and mortal condition will allow; and, on the other hand,
they can merit eternal life, to the fruition of which they
will be admitted if they die in the state of God's grace.
Well known are the words of the Saviour: He that shall drink
of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for ever;
but the water that I will give him shall become in him a
fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. ...
Pastors should teach that all kinds of satisfaction are
reducible to three heads: prayer, fasting and almsdeeds,
which correspond to three kinds of goods which we have
received from God, those of the soul, those of the body and
what are called external goods. ...
In this the supreme mercy and goodness of God deserve our
grateful acknowledgment and praise, that He has granted to
our frailty the privilege that one may satisfy for another.
This, however, is a privilege which is confined to the
satisfactory part of Penance alone. As regards contrition
and confession, no one is able to be contrite for another;
but those who are in the state of grace may pay for others
what is due to God, and thus we may be said in some measure
to bear each other's burdens.ns.
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a much
shortened explanation, but it clearly assumes these longer
statements:
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do
what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return
stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered,
pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as
much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself,
as well as his relationships with God and neighbor.
Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the
disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin,
the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by
doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must
"make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This
satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must
take into account the penitent's personal situation and must
seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as
possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed.
It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy,
service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and
above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear.
Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone
expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become
co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with
him."63
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however,
is not so much ours as though it were not done through
Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if
just by ourselves, can do all things with the
cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has
nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in
Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing
forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have
their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the
Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64
Let's distill what we've learned. In baptism, according to
Catholic teaching, both guilt and punishment for sin are
remitted, freely, through the merits of Christ (which is said to
be a full satisfaction). In confession, guilt is removed, the
eternal punishment due sin is remitted, but "temporal
punishment" is not. It is "wholly false" said Trent to suppose
that God entirely remits both guilt and punishment to the
repentant sinner. The forgiven Christian must make satisfaction
for his sins, must expiate his sins, must "make amends" or
"reparation" for his sins, must "appease" God.
Oh, it is said, glory still goes to Christ, who works in us.
Oh, we don't imagine we are doing anything apart from him. Oh,
he made full and complete satisfaction for sins. And yet he
didn't, did he? The Catholic teaching wants it both ways,
and clearly, the demand for personal satisfaction outweighs the
lip service paid to the satisfaction of Christ. We need to
suffer, like Christ did. We need to offer up prayer, fasting,
alms. We need to accept whatever penance is given by the priest
when we confess, but we can also offer things up freely, for
ourselves and others, and can get credit for enduring patiently
the struggles of life.
This is the idea at the root of the system of indulgences,
whether it be those sold by Tetzel or offered by a bishop or
pope today. It's tied to the idea of the mass as a sacrifice and
to the idea of purgatory. And it is all about human merit and
works. It's all about trying to make satisfaction for my own
sins or those of another.
It is to this that Luther addressed Paul's teaching of
justification by faith alone--we have no works that can make up
for failings in the past; even our good deeds fall short of the
glory of God. But Christ is our substitute; Christ made full and
complete atonement for sins; Christ's righteousness is ours
through faith. Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John
2:2). "Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself"; he "was once offered to
bear the sins of many" (Hebrews (9:26, 28). "By the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life" (Romans 5:18).
But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus
Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is
no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at
this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting
then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the
law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:21-28)
What a great gift we have in Jesus Christ! His blood covers
all. Through faith in him, all our sins are forgiven, all
punishment wiped away, and we stand before the throne of the
Father clad in the white robes of the spotless righteousness of
Christ. |
