Papal Intent, Papal Constraint

Separation of Church and Sin?

---

Mark Connolly

We continue -

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any
penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his
own authority or by that of the Canons.

I answer that:

I've had to think about this for a while, and I am still not convinced I understand what you are saying or what your point is. I think you are drawing a distinction between Sin and its penalties and Church Rules and its penalties. I base that assumption on the whole topic of your posted propositions, i.e. "the power and efficacy of indulgences."

One question I have is whether or not some Church Imposed Rule, in your mind, becomes Sin if it is not obeyed. And perhaps that question should be directed to the pope as well. And then of course there is the issue of "penalties". I am not sure what you mean by penalties. What are the penalties that the pope cannot remit, and who imposes those penalties?

I'm concerned about understanding you, because it appears to me that you may be viewing the concept of Purgatory as some kind of Penalty, and therefore Indulgences as some sort of Remission of this Penalty. Since that is not what Purgatory and Indulgences are all about, I am very concerned that I am misreading you this early on. Nevertheless, I shall forge ahead.

If the purpose of your point No. 5 is to point out that the pope cannot forgive sin, well, that is given and understood. The pope, the bishop, the priest, do not forgive sin, God forgives sin. If the pope sets up some kind of rule or policy that carries some sort of penalty if it is disobeyed, then the question comes back to, does this equate to sin? And if so, then does the pope have the authority to forgive sin? I would think the ultimate answer is still no, despite the Bind and Loose quotations in the Bible.

Why would I say that? Jesus states this bind and loose thing twice in Matthew. It appears clear that he wants it understood that there is a certain authority and responsibility being granted. Binding and loosing however don't mean forgiving. I may be splitting hairs here, but while a society's law makers may pass or repeal laws, the assignment of guilt and penalty is made by the Judge or Jury. The judges or juries convict or acquit. They do that within a framework, but they do it, not the lawyers or the persons that passed or repealed the law.

My analogy breaks down, however by virtue of this fact. Judge and Jury determine, essentially, whether or not someone has sinned. They don't forgive someone if they have broken the law. They have the opportunity to show lenience, but that is not the same thing.

The analogy breaks precisely in that we are guilty. It is not a question of whether or not we are guilty and need to be punished. We have been judged and we are guilty. We deserve punishment. The question is one of forgiveness.

If the pope says "Do this," and you don't, and you have sinned, God is the one that forgives, not the pope. If the pope changes this rule or that regulation, and it is no longer a sin, no forgiveness is required. Changing a law, while superficially having the aspect of taking away someone's culpability, is not the same as forgiving someone for breaking a law.

If my understanding of all this is correct, then your point 5 has no relevance to the discussion. Ψ

Addendum: I remembered after I posted this another quote specifically stating something about "whose sins you forgive..." so I looked it up and quote it here:

"And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20:20-23(KJV)

So... does this impact my statements above that only God forgives sin? I don't think so. I quoted more than just the last sentence because I like things presented in context. The preceding sentence says "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:" Note the colon. The forgiving sins part follows from the receiving the Holy Spirit part. The apostles, by virtue of receiving the Holy Spirit are saddled with the responsibility (or granted the honor, you pick) of standing in place of the Lord until he returns. In and of themselves, they have no power to remit anything. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Continue to Next Post

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

The Debate Begins

With a Brief Excursion into Latin

---

By Mark Connolly

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance.

I answer that:

I had no idea what Poenitentiam agite meant, and so had to look it up. The most common translations I have found are "Repent Ye" and "Do Penance". Now that I at least understand the words, if not your full meaning, I can attempt a response.

I wish I could be sure what exactly you are quoting. I assume it is a verse from one of the Gospels. The verse I am familiar with is from Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (KJV)

It strikes me that Jesus was giving a two part directive, repent and believe the good news. I do not know if you are quoting the above verse or if you are quoting Jesus from some other passage of the Bible. The two concepts do seem bound to one another regardless. Repent and believe. Or, do penance and believe. The question becomes, was Jesus telling us to do penance always? Was it an eternal command? Or, if you did repent, and did believe, and went forth and sinned no more (as he directed several people to do after curing them of some affliction or another) were you still required to do penance? Are we to do penance in Heaven? What do you mean by "the whole life of believers"?

Or, is this a figurative comment, indicating perhaps your understanding that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, such that constant repentance, constant penance is our default state?

But no, your first proposition is that Jesus willed that believers should always be repentant. You imply that if you believe, you should repent. You have reversed the order of His statement.

Your proposition does not seem consistent with the whole of the Gospel Message, which is one of complete Love and the clear desire that mankind would come to know and follow Jesus and be forgiven. He wanted us to believe in the Good News. Repentance is part of the process, and is possibly a means to the end. But it is not the end. As to what Jesus wills, the only exertion of his will that I have found in the Gospels was his complete cooperation with the will of The Father.

I find I cannot agree with this proposition as I understand it from your presentation.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests.

I answer that:

If by "this word" you mean "Poenitentiam" then I have to give a conditional "thumbs up". It is clear that a person can be repentant and do penance without having received the Sacrament of Reconciliation or, as it may have been called in your day, The Sacrament of Penance. My condition is that I don't know where you are going with that, and so I may have to come back and rethink my answer once I understand your point. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

Martin Luther Begins

Invitation To a Debate

---

By Mark Connolly

MARTIN LUTHER CONTINUES:

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light,
the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg,
under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in
Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that
those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us,
may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

It is clear to me from the above opening statement that Martin Luther had some issues that he felt strongly about, and was wanting to bring into some discourse, and ideally some resolution. I do not know at this point whether or not the above referenced meeting took place. I was unable to be present at the time and debate orally with them, so I now take up his offer of doing so by letter.

Dear Reverend Father Martin Luther, I take up your offer to debate with you by letter. Thank you for your courtesy.

It is my understanding that at the writing of these propositions you were a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, you are no doubt far more familiar with the circumstances leading up to your posting of these propositions than I am, or probably will ever be. A cursory overview of your propositions leads me to believe many of the circumstances of the day are no longer extant. Whether this will bear out will be seen as we go through these one by one. I close now by saying I look forward to the debate. Ψ

disclaimer: I have no doctorate in theology, and no formal training. I do not speak for the Catholic Church, and the subsequent views and opinions expressed here should not be taken as anything other than the musing of someone who is interested in the debate. msc

Continue to Next Post

A Lay Catholic Responds To Luther

DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF
INDULGENCES

BY REVEREND FATHER MARTIN LUTHER

OCTOBER 31, 1517

---

Mark Connolly

This is the document which I have heard began the Protestant Reformation. It is my intent to read through the whole thing and respond as best I can with my understanding of things at this point in my life.

The plan is to respond, in subsequent posts, to a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 of each of the 95 propositions put forth by Martin Luther. I hope to continue doing so until I have responded to all 95.

I confess to not knowing anything about these propositions at this time. I shall learn as I go. Perhaps others may find this an interesting exercise. Ψ

Continue to Next Post