Tuesday, April 08, 2008

We Continue

Further Exploration of Penance/Repentance


Mark Connolly
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh.
I answer that:

This seems a bit of a hedge to me. You imply in No. 2 that an outward sign (sacramental action) is not required, but here in No. 3 you say that some outward sign is required. And that (sacramental) "satisfaction" is not required, but that "divers mortifications of the flesh" are required. It appears to me you are laying some groundwork here, but I know not where you go at this time. I shall revisit after considering your subsequent points.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as
hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward
repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom
of heaven.
I answer that:

I am going to assume I am missing some fine point of theology here. I can't square hating yourself with the quotation from Jesus in Mark 12:27-34. Specifically, verse Mk 12:31 - "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (KJV) Naturally, there are lots and lots of quotations similar to these from Luke and Matthew. But I want to resist the kind of "so there" Bible Proofing that is typically counterproductive to debate.

Perhaps it is a 16th century stylistic issue, or some translation from German or Latin problem. This hatred of self seems, well, wrong. The implication I receive from the above is that we are never forgiven in this life, only when we get to heaven. That on this earth, we must lead lives of "sturm und drang", a continuous penance, as though the reality of Christ never happened, or if it happened, we are to act as if it has not, leaving no place for the joy of being a believer.

I conclude that I find no support for your concept that "hatred of self" is any type of requirement of Our Lord, or a precondition of doing penance. This seems to be a construct of your own, a philosophical development following some obscure line of reasoning not evident thus far in your propositions. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

0 comments: