Beatus Vir

The following is from Zenit.org (HT to Tim May at De Ecclesia et Liturgia -- which is more than just another blog with a catchy Latin title). My comments to follow:

On St. Paul and Justification
"To Be Just Means Simply to Be With Christ and in Christ"

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered during today's general audience in St. Peter's Square.The Holy Father continued today the cycle of catecheses dedicated to the figure and thought of St. Paul.* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the journey we have undertaken under the guidance of St. Paul, we now wish to reflect on a topic that is at the center of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the issue of justification. How is a man just in the eyes of God? When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus he was a fulfilled man: irreproachable in regard to justice derived from the law (cf. Philippians 3:6); he surpassed many of his contemporaries in the observance of the Mosaic prescriptions and was zealous in upholding the traditions of his forefathers (cf. Galatians 1:14).The illumination of Damascus changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as "loss" in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:8). The Letter to the Philippians gives us a moving testimony of Paul's turning from a justice based on the law and achieved by observance of the prescribed works, to a justice based on faith in Christ: He understood all that up to now had seemed a gain to him was in fact a loss before God, and because of this decided to dedicate his whole life to Jesus Christ (cf. Philippians 3:7). The treasure hidden in the field, and the precious pearl in whose possession he invests everything, were no longer the works of the law, but Jesus Christ, his Lord.

The relationship between Paul and the Risen One is so profound that it impels him to affirm that Christ was not only his life, but his living, to the point that to be able to reach him, even death was a gain (cf. Philippians 1:21). It was not because he did not appreciate life, but because he understood that for him, living no longer had another objective; therefore, he no longer had a desire other than to reach Christ, as in an athletic competition, to be with him always. The Risen One had become the beginning and end of his existence, the reason and goal of his running. Only concern for the growth in faith of those he had evangelized and solicitude for all the Churches he had founded (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:28), induced him to slow down the run toward his only Lord, to wait for his disciples, so that they would be able to run to the goal with him. If in the previous observance of the law he had nothing to reproach himself from the point of view of moral integrity, once overtaken by Christ he preferred not to judge himself (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:3-4), but limited himself to run to conquer the one who had conquered him (cf. Philippians 3:12).
It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ. The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters: "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).And, he reaffirms to the Christians of Rome that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:23-24). And he adds: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Ibid. 28). Luther translated this point as "justified by faith alone." I will return to this at the end of the catechesis.

First, we must clarify what is the "law" from which we have been freed and what are those "works of the law" that do not justify. Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. So, the words "panta mou estin" (everything is licit for me) circulated in Corinth. It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.

Therefore, what is the meaning of the law from which we have been freed and that does not save? For St. Paul, as well as for all his contemporaries, the word law meant the Torah in its totality, namely, the five books of Moses. In the Pharisaic interpretation, the Torah implied what Paul had studied and made his own, a collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man -- particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc. These behaviors often appear in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had come to be singularly important at the time of Hellenistic culture, beginning in the 3rd century B.C.This culture, which had become the universal culture of the time, was a seemingly rational culture, an apparently tolerant polytheist culture, which constituted a strong pressure toward cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically obliged to enter into this common identity of Hellenistic culture with the consequent loss of its own identity, loss hence also of the precious inheritance of the faith of their Fathers, of faith in the one God and in God's promises.

Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened Jewish identity but also faith in the one God and his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith; this wall would consist precisely of the Jewish observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances precisely in their defensive function of the gift of God, of the inheritance of the faith in only one God, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of Christians: That is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the only true God became the God of all peoples.The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.

That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).

Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday's Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray to the Lord so that he will help us to believe. To really believe; belief thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God.
[Translation by ZENIT]

My comments:

In my old circles, we were fond of pointing out that the Catholic Church's position on Justification has not changed since Trent. I still hold this to be true, and in fact, it hasn't changed since Augustine or even since St. Paul or Jesus either. What Benedict says here is perfectly in line with Trent, and Augustine, and, as his holiness points out, the Apostle Paul.

There is a sense in which a Catholic may affirm that we are justified by faith alone, that is, if love is not excluded. In fact, it is true that many Church Fathers do speak this way, and yet at the same time point out that faith without charity is not sufficient for salvation. That is where Lutherans have their hang up, as is seen in the rejection of the formula "Good works are necessary for salvation." Philip Melancthon, author of the Augustana and it's Defence, held this formula, and was called a synergist and crypto-romanist for it.

Thus Benedict's statement really doesn't mark anything new or surprising, although I see in it a clear hand of welcome to our separated brethren to re-embrace that truth that the Catholic Church has learned of Paul, and has always held and cherished.

Posted by Dan Woodring at 9:44 PM | 17 comments  

Labels: Benedict XVI, Justification

For Pro-Lifers, A New Day By John Jay Hughes

The above article appeared last week over at First Things. I think this quote sums it up:

"Beyond replacing political naivete with political savvy, the task before pro-life people now is to concentrate on the only task that will bring success in the fight for life: changing hearts and minds."

John Jay Hughes makes many cogent points in this aricle. Yet I cannot help but think that, as a whole, it is just more "quitter talk." New day, maybe, but same old sh...tuff.

It is certainly true that the illegalization of abortion will not bring an end to all abortions. Forty years ago my mother struggled with the idea of "terminating" her unwanted pregnancy, facing pressure by "sympathetic" friends and loved ones, and the encourage by her pastor in the American Lutheran Church (now ELCA) who stated that the Lutheran Church is not opposed to abortion. Those who do the math will note that this took place before the legalization of abortion in America. She could, indeed, have gotten an abortion, but only illegally.

She kept her baby, largely due to being won over "in heart and mind" by the display of fetal development at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry, which convinced her that her "fetus" was a "baby", but also because, in America, abortion was illegal.

I was that baby who was allowed to live. And I can tell you with no equivocation, I am thankful that the law was on my side.

Pop quiz:
An murderer hold a gun to the head of your three year old daughter, and you possessed the strength and occasion to either subdue the man or wisk your daughter to safety, would you A) do so or B) try to "win" the man's "heart and mind" though persuasive argumentation?

As the father of eight children, I can tell you that I would take away the gun, and I would care little or nothing at all whether the gunman agreed with my reasons for doing so.

Such an argument may seem simplistic. But don't confuse simplistic with simple. The simple truth is that if we want to save the unborn, we have to make abortion unlawful. We have to take away the abortionist's weapon, legalized abortion.

When I consider arguments as those referenced above, as well as those of many of my fellow Catholics, I frankly see nothing other than a flimsy attempt to justify the support of a political leader who views and activism for abortion-rights could morally justify his being imprisoned for the rest of his natural life for crimes against humanity rather than spending the next 4 years in the While House. (And make no mistake, abortion is a crime against humanity.)

I do understand the frustration of Catholics. The Republican Party does little more than talk a good talk, against abortion while shifting the blame to the lack of pro-life judges. Out of the other side of their mouth they claim they do not want judges "who legislate from the bench." If this isn't political double-speak, I don't know what is.

What Catholics and other pro-life Americans don't realize is that they have the muscle to bring about a difference. If each pro-life American only supports pro-life candidates, I assure you that the Democratic party would have to re-evaluate it's advocacy of legal abortion, as they had to re-evaluate their advocacy of slavery more than a century ago. Republican lawmakers will see that we are going to hold them accountable. Imagine all the major political parties standing up for the fundamental civil rights of the unborn. It's easy if you try.

Yet, while the illegalization of abortion be set on the proverbial back burner "until we win hearts and minds." We do need to win hearts and minds as well. And we need to stand by the promise made by bishops, and organizations like the Gabriel Project to support pregnant women so that they need not abort their babies. But that is not enough. As Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said,

"Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society's treatment of defenseless human life."

In short, if we truly want a "new day," A day that sees the end of abortion, our goals must be to make abortion unnecessary, unthinkable, and unlawful. But we must end the "quitter talk" of yesterday. American Catholics, together with all other pro-life Americans, do have the strength and occasion to end abortion. The question is, "Will we ever use it?"

Posted by Dan Woodring at 2:21 PM | 1 comments  

Labels: Abortion

I have, rather intermittently, been discussing imputation vs. impartation with LP Cruz over at Extra Nos. I thought I would post my response here to see what kind of comment it generates. It is rather interesting, or I should say distressing, how the teaching of the Catholic Church, once again, is distorted and misrepresented. Why is it that Lutherans cannot argue against the Catholic Church without either lying about her teaching or refusing to get their facts straight. Seriously. The day I stopped being a Lutheran was when I realized that the Book of Concord lied about what Augustine and the Catholic Church taught on Justification. I realized I could not subscribe to a book that was untruthful. Why couldn't they make their case, and say "We disagree with Augustine" and present the Roman Catholic view accurately and make their case without distorting the position of their opponents?

That said, this is what I wrote to LP.

You said that the unregerate man cannot, on his own, trust in Christ. Rightly so.

However, that trust, or faith, is worked in us through the Holy Spirit. "I believe that I cannot by my own reason and strength believe in Jesus Christ..." Faith is something that can only come through the inworking of the Holy Spirit. That is the flaw in the whole impartation vs. imputation thing. Because of faith, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (extra nos). But that faith itself is something that the Holy Spirit imparts to us (in nobis).

Let me point out the logical inconsistancy another way. For Lutherans:

Faith (Trust in Christ) comes before Justification (because we are "justified by faith alone")

Justification comes before renewal. (FCSD III: 19ff.)

Yet, renewal must preceed faith, since the unrenewed man cannot trust in Christ.

Your comment about "it is finished", reminds me of the day this was discussed in seminary. The prof explained that on the cross, our justification was complete. One student raised his hand and asked "So why did Jesus rise from the dead." The prof answered "what else could He do?" I had that some prof for my theological interview, and he asked me to what event does St. Paul connect our justification. I answered "The cross." He pointed out that in fact it was the resurrection (Rom. 4). I replied, tongue in cheek, that I thought my answer was "more Lutheran."

Man's sin, his unrighteousness, consists in two things. Guilt, which is largely extra nos (the guilt of Adam) but also guilt for our own transgression. But sin is also corruption, which is entirely in us, in nobis. If our unrighteousness is twofold, so also must be our righteousness. It is a non-imputation of guilt and imputation of an alien righteousness (extra nos), but also the injury, the corruption of sin, must be repaired in nobis. The former is by imputation, the latter by impartation. The former is gained on Calvary, the latter comes through the empty tomb. If you read Augustine's anti-pelagian writings, you will see how the grace of pardon (imputed righteousness) and the grace of renewal (imparted righteousness) both belong to justification. Interestingly enough, it was Pelagius who, like Lutherans, accepted the former while denying the latter. Further, the insistance that renewal follows justification, and cannot precede justification, inadvertantly implies a pelagianism because it requires an unrenewed man to exhibit faith.

As far as "Mother Church" goes, we hold that the subject who both imputes and imparts righteousness is God, though Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Neither righteousness has its origin in man or is achieved through human effort. Both are by grace alone. Your presupposition that imputation is grace and impartation is works (by human effort) is off the mark.

As I see it, the problem with Lutheranism is that it only has half of the Gospel, but at least it's the better half.

Posted by Dan Woodring at 3:46 PM | 16 comments