St. Paul on Justification
Apr 30th, 2009 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsYesterday Professor Lawrence Feingold gave an outstanding lecture on “St. Paul on Justification.” Listen to the lecture and the Q&A below:
Lecture:
Q&A:
The mp3s for this lecture (and the Q&A) can be downloaded here. I’m creating a forum here for us to discuss this lecture.
Thanks for passing this along. It’s good as usual from Dr. Feingold. I thought the Q&A was particularly insightful.
Brian,
Are you the same Brian Cross that used to debate on the PCA site?
Thanks,
Mike Spreng
Mike,
I don’t know, because I’m not sure what PCA site you are referring to. I’ve always spelled my first name with a ‘y’. So if this person spelled his name with an ‘i’, then it wasn’t me.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Awesome.
Bryan,
It was the By Faith site, in the forum section. I don’t think it is still available. The PCA shut it down because the conservatives where winning! Anyhow, I remember debating against some guys on the “Sonship” heresy and the Br”y”an Cross that was writing there was a huge help. The issue was so big that I had to leave the PCA (my presbytery despised anyone that was against it). That was the begining of my road out of the “Reformed” view of Justification.
Mike
The strength of Dr Feingold’s lecture is, for me, also its weakness. Feingold reads the Apostle Paul through the lens of Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent. I think this is perfectly legitimate and helpful. We all have to begin somewhere, and as Catholics we confess the appropriateness of reading Scripture through the theological tradition of the Church. Feingold demonstrates that the Pauline letters can be plausibly interpreted through the Tridentine understanding of justification and the scholastic distinctions of causality. Protestants may find this lecture valuable for its attempt to demonstrate the biblical grounding of the traditional Catholic construal of justification, though I doubt, if I were a Protestant, I would be persuaded.
I can’t help feeling that something vital is lost in Feingold’s interpretation. Whose voice is stronger in this lecture, St Paul’s or St Thomas’s? I fear that the Apostle is being squeezed into a scholastic procrustean bed, with little regard for historical exegesis and the real concerns and purposes of St Paul. I suspect that Joseph Fitzmyer may be a more reliable guide to the exegesis of the Pauline epistles than Lawrence Feingold.
Based on this lecture, I would have to say that Feingold appears to have a marginal grasp of Luther and the motivations lying behind his novel theory of justification. It all sounds like it was just an intellectual debate, with Luther failing to correctly identify the formal cause of our righteousness in Christ. This is unfortunate, in my opinion. The problem here does not become apparent until one attempts to preach the Tridentine ordo salutis. It is very difficult not to fall into a enervating moralism, as well demonstrated in typical Catholic homilies. I am not picking on Trent here. I would advance a similar, though different, criticism of most Reformed construals. The problem is the translation of a third-person description of the process of salvation into first-person gospel proclamation.
Amen, Fr. Kimel. We all start somewhere, and I had to grow out of my radical Thomism phase, as well.
-Jay
Father Kimel,
Can you be more specific on which part(s) of his lecture you found lacking?
Tim, I am hesitant to elaborate too much, as I do not want to do injustice to Feingold’s lecture. I confess that I found the lecture boring and my mind wandered quite a bit.
Perhaps my comprehensive concern about the lecture is best evidenced in the Q&A period. What kinds of questions did this lecture generate? What did everyone first want to talk about? Answer: mortal and venial sins! This, I think, is a usual response. The question is why. Something is wrong if after a presentation of St Paul’s doctrine of justification everyone should find themselves worrying more about their mortal and venial sins than they are rejoicing in the unmerited love and grace of God. If that is the result, then, I humbly suggest, St Paul’s thought has not been presented accurately. Luther may have gotten Paul wrong at critical points (and Feingold identifies a couple of them), but I think Luther also re-discovered in St Paul something that the Western tradition had forgotten, namely, that the authentic preaching of the gospel leads to joy, faith, gratitude, and assurance, not to morbid introspection and the fear of hell.
Compare Dr Feingold’s lecture with Joseph Fitzmyer’s book *Spiritual Exercises Based on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans*. Also compare it to Raniero Cantalamessa’s *Life in Christ*.
I do not object in any way to the reading of Scripture through the theological and dogmatic tradition; but I do believe that one needs to be careful to make sure that the particularities of the biblical authors are recognized and honored. St Paul was not a scholastic. I do not think he would have recognized his understanding of justification (whatever it in fact was) in Feingold’s lecture. This doesn’t mean that the scholastic construal of justification is wrong (systematic theologians often ask and answer questions that biblical authors do not explicitly address), but it does mean that we should be careful about reading back into the biblical authors conceptualities and distinctions that are foreign to their thought.
In this lecture we really get a lot more Aquinas and Trent than we do St Paul. And that’s too bad. Catholics can stand more than a few big doses of the real Apostle.
Well of everything I’ve ever read from or about Martin Luther – this is thing I identify with the most; that after all my prayers and struggles – I don’t seem to be any better of a person. I keep on choosing sin over God.
But if there is such a thing as mortal and venial sins (i.e. Aquinas didn’t just invent it), then this would be the purely natural thing for a person to ask about after a discussion on justification where it was mentioned (even if it were not the exclusive lens through which Paul was viewed).
If what Paul is talking about is so worth rejoicing about, and if it can potentially be lost by a choice (which I am prone to make), then how can it be anything but natural for me to ask about that distinction? Therefore I do not follow the argument that to respond by asking questions (even if in scholastic language) necessarily shows that I don’t get Paul’s real intention nor that I don’t feel the joy I ought to.
There is a certain joy that flows freely from the gospel. There’s also something very scary – the “pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin” part. If we have one without the other – I think we’ve evidently missed the true gospel. But having one does not demonstrate that we have not the other.
Fr. Kimel,
Do you really think that reading St. Paul through Trent is reading St. Paul through a “scholastic procrustean bed”? I’m wondering now, whether your “third law” is ad hoc, since it enjoins reading the Scripture through the Fathers, but (apparently) not through Trent. The first paragraph in your comment (#6) doesn’t sound at all like your third law. You make it seem that Trent is one among many legitimate places from which to approach St. Paul on justification. But if Trent 6 is infallible, then wouldn’t it be inappropriate for a Catholic to approach St. Paul as if Trent had not taken place or as if Trent were not infallible? Wouldn’t that be analogous to approaching the Old Testament as if Christ had never come?
The problem here does not become apparent until one attempts to preach the Tridentine ordo salutis. It is very difficult not to fall into a enervating moralism
Why doesn’t the difficulty of preaching an infallible dogma such as the Tridentine ordo salutis say more about the weakness of the preacher / listeners than about the goodness and truth of the dogma?
I confess that I found the lecture boring and my mind wandered quite a bit.
That wasn’t the case for those who attended the lecture, including myself. The room was full, and someone sitting in the back of the room commented to me yesterday how she was amazed that everyone was so attentive and engaged in the lecture. I myself found it very clear and insightful as an explanation of the Catholic doctrine of justification, as found in St. Paul, and as contrasted with Luther’s position.
Perhaps my comprehensive concern about the lecture is best evidenced in the Q&A period. What kinds of questions did this lecture generate? What did everyone first want to talk about? Answer: mortal and venial sins!
This was a question raised by a Protestant who had no conception of the distinction (I know because I talked with him). In fact, most of the questions were from Protestants.
Something is wrong if after a presentation of St Paul’s doctrine of justification everyone should find themselves worrying more about their mortal and venial sins than they are rejoicing in the unmerited love and grace of God.
Even if they are in a state of mortal sin? Seriously?
I think Luther also re-discovered in St Paul something that the Western tradition had forgotten, namely, that the authentic preaching of the gospel leads to joy, faith, gratitude, and assurance, not to morbid introspection and the fear of hell.
What about contrition? “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins”. Why leave off the necessity of repentance as an essential response to the Gospel?
but it does mean that we should be careful about reading back into the biblical authors conceptualities and distinctions that are foreign to their thought.
Which foreign conceptuality and distinction do you think Prof. Feingold read back into St. Paul? It is one thing to claim that St. Paul made use of distinctions that St. Paul did not in fact make use of; it is quite another to explain by way of philosophy (that St. Paul didn’t use) conceptualities and distinctions that St. Paul did make use of. It seems to me that Aquinas and Trent and Prof. Feingold are doing the latter.
In this lecture we really get a lot more Aquinas and Trent than we do St Paul. And that’s too bad. Catholics can stand more than a few big doses of the real Apostle.
You make it seem as though Aquinas and Trent were a loss, and not a development of what St. Paul taught on justification. That’s quite puzzling to me. Of course Prof. Feingold didn’t exhaust what St. Paul says; he didn’t have time in one lecture to do a comprehensive survey of Romans and Galatians and Ephesians. But Trent gives us an infallible framework through which to understand what St. Paul says about justification. And that seems to me to be the way Catholics should be approaching St. Paul.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
He’s right. The Fathers weren’t western scholastics, except for Augustine. The entire milieu of serious concilar dogma in the first 7 centuries was Eastern, not medieval western scholasticism, much of which was ignorant of the Eastern tradition. The meaning of Trent can be found, but much of the mindset of Tridentine Thomists is foreign to the Greek-Hellenic mind of the New Testament and the fathers of the first 7 councils. The fathers & periti of Vatican II recognized this as well, which is why many wanted to move away from medieval scholasticism.
Catholicity is larger than medieval scholasticism that’s for sure. But it’s also larger than Eastern theology. That the early councils were held in the East is as accidental as the fact that the See of Peter is in the West.
I don’t see the big deal with looking at Paul through the lens of Trent; it helps. I also don’t see why we should make Trent the principal lens through which we do, either. I also don’t understand why we have to make a big deal out of red grapes and green grapes. Am I off on this point? I personally don’t think scriptures should ever be read through any particular lens, though these lenses should be kept near our scriptures for guidance. Can we not make grape juice with red grapes and green grapes together?
Any thoughts?
Tim,
I agree, but the thought of the East–their terms and concepts–is what was confirmed as normative Orthodoxy by the See of Peter for the first 800 years.
-Jay
Jared,
I agree, but it seems we’re always working with some kind of lense. I think the best we can do is be as catholic as possible–meaning inlcuding in our studies a robust understanding of East and West. For example, the West tends to neglect Liturgy as a key component of theological inquiry. Theological inquiry is confined to patristic and biblical texts and systematics, while liturgy is viewed as kind of separate academic discipline. I’m not making this absolute, I’m just sayinh its a tendency. The East has done a much better job, I believe, in integrating the unity of the experience of the Christian in terms of mystagogy. At Vatican II, Eastern Catholic Bishops were complaining of this, and rightly so. There is no systematics apart from individual experience in the Liturgy. Fr. Alexander Schmemann has really good stuff on this point and many Latins have come to appreciate him for it.
Btw–a little side note–if one gets a good hold in liturgy and its historical forms, it can become a very powerful argument in terms of discussions with Protestants. I have found it to be so.
Jay,
Yes, but almost all of the great heresies were Eastern as well.
Jared,
When reading the Scriptures, we have to look through some lens – it’s impossible to approach something without any bias. That is why we shouldn’t take issue with reading Paul through Trent because not only is Trent a valid way of understanding Paul, it’s an infallible way. It doesn’t exhaustively expound the mysteries which Paul writes on – of course not – and it can’t, perhaps, force one to experience the joy which should accompany a right understanding of say – Galatians, but it does infallibly clarify boundaries within which a Catholic Christian is to understand Paul – particularly on Justification.
That is why, when a Catholic professor goes to speak on Paul and Justification, we should expect nothing less than a good dose of Tridentine language – because this is how the Church has told us we are to receive Paul (at least within these parameters).
-Tim
Tim,
Absolutely, but it’s interesting that the 7 councils are all Eastern and the major theologians whose works are confirmed at those councils are the Eastern Doctors. I’m not denigrading the western Doctors, just saying that if we were interested in getting a more fully “catholic” idea, we could look at what was done at the ecumenical councils: empire-wide. As such, the theology of Augustine, Jerome and Gregory exercise very little influence. There is Pope St. Leo, to be sure, but he is the lone western conciliar figure in a sea of Eastern giants. Conciliarly speaking, of course.
Nicea I is St. Alexander and later St. Athanasius
Const. I is St. Gregory of Nazianzus
Ephesus is all St. Cyril
Chalcedon is Leo
Const. II is Justinian
Const. III is St. Maximus and Pope St. Agatho
Nicea II is St. John of Damascus
Undoubtedly, the theology that becomes the ecumenical norm for Trinitarian theology and Christology is that of the orthodox Alexandrians and Cappadocians, for all the later councils work with this framework.
Tim,
Yes, I agree with you. When I meant that we shouln’t read scripture through any particular lens, I was speaking more specifically of established perspectives (e.g. east , west) Of course, we always cary our own lenses to the scriptures, but, as I think you would agree, having our own lens is not necessarily a wrong thing. However, I do think it is necessary to interpret the Church’s infallable teaching of Justification through the lens of Trent, in order to understand it.
Jay,
Yes, I agree with you as well. I am very frusterared with western liturgy, actually. This is why I go to an Byzantine Catholic Church. I wouldn’t be able to express to you how I feal when I go to my mom and dad’s church with them(western; new mass). All I can say is that it makes me want to leave, and I can’t help it. Can you link me with some good material to learn more about what you are saying concerning mystagogy?
In Christ,
Jared B
Jared,
You don’t have to express any frustrations about the way the new mass is often done. I’ve dealt with is since leaving Calvinism and Bahnsen Seminary in 2002-03. It drove me to the SSPX (I do not attend the SSPX mass anymore).
-Jay
Bryan, you are certainly free to believe that Trent provides us “an infallible framework through which to understand what St Paul says about justification,” but you are no doubt aware that many fine Catholic theologians will disagree with you. Your claim raises serious questions regarding the proper interpretation of biblical and dogmatic statements, the relationship between biblical exegesis and dogma, and the meaning and scope of dogmatic infallibility as defined by Vatican I. I doubt either of us want to engage in controversial argument on these matters, at least I do not.
Being a faithful Catholic does not commit one to believing that the Tridentine decree on justification represents the best and most adequate way to speak of justification. If it did, then the ecumenical discussion on justification over the past fifty years would have had little point. The simple fact is, the Catholic understanding of justification has developed in the centuries subsequent to Trent and continues to develop at the present moment, as evidenced by the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification. While this document is not considered to be an infallible dogmatic statement of the Magisterium, it does enjoy an authoritative status that is more than just opinion. In the judgment of one theologian, Edward T. Oakes, given that the Vatican formally signed off on the document, the Council of Trent “must henceforth be seen through the lens of that Joint Statement.”
At the very least I think that we may say that the Joint Declaration must be the theological starting place for Catholics who wish to engage in theological conversation with Protestants on the subject of justification. Catholic theologians cannot simply re-iterate the anathemas of Trent, as if significant theological rapprochement has not occurred between Protestantism (at least as represented by the churches of the Lutheran World Federation) and the Catholic Church. If the “Lutheran” position as stated in the Agreement is declared not to be church-dividing, and therefore not heretical, then this in itself has dramatic consequences for continued Catholic articulation of the dogma of justification.
You ask what conceptualities Feingold may have read back into St Paul. Sanctifying (created) grace and the scholastic “causes” of justification immediately come to mind. Please note: I am not declaring that these are illegitimate theological concepts and developments, but I do question their employment when one is purporting to do the scientific exegesis of the Bible. I know there are no hard-and-fast rules here. The negotiation of exegesis and systematic theological reflection is neither easy nor obvious. But there is a difference between what St Paul taught and what St Thomas taught about St Paul. In Dr Feingold’s lecture, I think we heard more the latter than the former.
Fr. Kimel,
Bryan, you are certainly free to believe that Trent provides us “an infallible framework through which to understand what St Paul says about justification,” but you are no doubt aware that many fine Catholic theologians will disagree with you.
I would be interested in knowing what criteria you use in determining what constitutes being a “fine” theologian. If a theologian who professes to be Catholic denies the infallibility of Trent, I would see that as disqualifying him from counting as a “fine” [Catholic] theologian. It seems to me that orthodoxy ought to be one of the criteria used to determine whether a theologian is fine or less than fine. It seems that orthodoxy would be the bare minimum.
Being a faithful Catholic does not commit one to believing that the Tridentine decree on justification represents the best and most adequate way to speak of justification.
I agree. But it does commit one at least to believe everything infallibly affirmed by Trent and to deny everything infallibly anathematized by Trent. If it doesn’t, then what does “faithful” even mean? Development can never deny anything already infallibly laid down.
If it did, then the ecumenical discussion on justification over the past fifty years would have had little point.
That seems like a non sequitur to me. See my two ecumenicisms post.
The simple fact is, the Catholic understanding of justification has developed in the centuries subsequent to Trent and continues to develop at the present moment, as evidenced by the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification. While this document is not considered to be an infallible dogmatic statement of the Magisterium, it does enjoy an authoritative status that is more than just opinion.
It is my understanding that the Joint Declaration has no authority in the Catholic Church. The JD is not a teaching of the extraordinary, ordinary or universal magisterium of the Church. That it was signed by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity does not make it a teaching of the ordinary magisterium. So I (respectfully) take issue with Fr. Oakes on this point. But this is an extremely important point, one that needs to be examined carefully.
At the very least I think that we may say that the Joint Declaration must be the theological starting place for Catholics who wish to engage in theological conversation with Protestants on the subject of justification.
Whether that statement is true depends on whether or not the JD is authoritative Catholic teaching.
It seems to me that we can affirm that there has been some significant theological rapprochement between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, without denying any of the infallible decrees or canons of Trent.
but I do question their employment when one is purporting to do the scientific exegesis of the Bible.
If by “scientific exegesis” you are referring to an activity that does not involve making use of subsequent writings in the Fathers or the Creeds or the General Councils, then sure. But that’s not what Prof. Feingold was intending to do. So I don’t think it would be fair to criticize him for not doing what he wasn’t intending to do in this talk.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Mike,
I’m not the same Bryan Cross who debated on the PCA site.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
But there is a difference between what St Paul taught and what St Thomas taught about St Paul.
Obviously. St. Thomas was not merely quoting Sacred Scripture. Neither were the Tridentine fathers. For that matter, there is a difference between what St. Paul taught (consciously, as a man) and what St. Paul taught (mystically, as inspired by the Holy Spirit).
We are called to the fullness of truth, which, in the nature of the case, takes us well beyond the purview of “scientific exegesis.” The relation between the literal sense of Scripture and the mystical sense of Scripture is complex indeed. But so is the concept of scientific exegesis, and so is the question of how such exegesis is to be rightly applied, all things considered, to a text whose author is God.
I can see no reason why anyone is in a better position to discern the truth taught by God in Sacred Scripture written by St. Paul, say, in Romans and Galatians, then the Tridentine fathers.
The means by which the fathers arrived at their teaching, whether supernatural or naturalistic (or both, as was the case, and is ever the case, in an Ecumenical Council), the time at which they promulgated their teaching, whether the 16th century (as it was), 5th century, or 21st century, and their theological idiom, whether pharisaical, neo-platonic, scholastic (as it sort of was), bombastic, phenomological, personalistic or merely idiosyncratic (which everything is until it becomes fashionable), is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not what they said is true; i.e., corresponds to reality (as it did and does and ever shall, world without end).
(Now someone can jump in and say that the correspondence theory of truth is complex and controversial. Well, it is not very complex. It is controversial, and that just goes to show that people will disbelieve things that they can’t help knowing.)
Back to the matter at hand: I cannot see why an exegete who seeks to know as much as he can concerning the the truth of justification ought not, first and foremost, bring what he knows (in whatever way and from whatever source) about the truth of justification to bear upon his reading of Sacred Scripture which treats of justification. For knowledge comes from knowledge, and truth is one.
Father Kimmel,
You aren’t saying that Trent isn’t infallible but rather that Trent doesn’t do a great job at explaining justification? Is that a good summary?
Bryan, ecumenical councils are not infallible in everything they assert. The category of infallibility is restricted to dogmatic definitions. Hence when you and Tim write that the Tridentine “framework” is infallible, I honestly do not know what you mean. Please specify the dogmatic definition enunciated by Trent that you have in mind and provide the criteria you are employing in identifying this dogmatic definition. You have invoked dogmatic infallibility to support your argument. At this point you have opened a theological can of worms and must now wade into the turbulent waters of inter-Catholic disputation.
The Catholic Church is simply bigger, more complex, and more nuanced than you seem to allow. We may sometimes wish that the Catholic Church would not allow as much theological diversity as she does, but she does in fact embrace within herself a diversity of theological positions and approaches. The dogma of justification is case in point. Catholic theology does not recognize Trent as having asserted the final word on justification. Trent spoke a necessary word, an irreformable word, but not the final word. If this were not the case, then Newman would have been compelled to repudiate his Lectures on Justification–lectures which were powerfully influential in 20th century Catholic reflection on this topic and continue to be influential in the 21st century.
You have denied any authoritative status to the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification. Do you realize the implications of what you have said? If you are right, then the Catholic Church has in fact lied to the world–and specifically, she has lied to the Protestant world. She has asserted a theological agreement on justification where no binding agreement in reality exists–and she has done this with full knowledge and assent of the Holy Father. Are you really willing to say this?
I find myself constrained to confront you on this point. I have only been a Catholic for a relatively short time, but I have been a Catholic long enough to know that the Catholic Church is NOT accurately and fully represented in your presentation of her teachings on this topic of justification. Excuse my bluntness.
Faithfully yours,
Fr Alvin Kimel
Here is some of the hard evidence (make of it what you will, I suppose):
Since there is being disseminated at this time, not without the loss of many souls and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine concerning justification, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the most reverend John Maria, Bishop of Praeneste de Monte, and Marcellus, priest of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, cardinals of the holy Roman Church and legates Apostolic a latere, presiding in the name of our most holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul III, by the providence of God, Pope, intends, for the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquillity of the Church and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification, which the Sun of justice,[1] Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith[2] taught, which the Apostles transmitted and which the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost has always retained; strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth presume to believe, preach or teach otherwise than is defined and declared in the present decree.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session VI – Celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547 under Pope Paul III
Whence follows the decrees and canons concerning justification, which have been referred to in the preceding comments, and can be read in full here.
Father Kimel,
Please specify the Magisterial document promulgated by the Catholic Church that you have in mind and provide the criteria you are employing in identifying this as a Magisterial document illustrating that the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church.
I expect it too be pretty strong stuff, given your tone.
Father Kimmel,
Hence when you and Tim write that the Tridentine “framework” is infallible, I honestly do not know what you mean. Please specify the dogmatic definition enunciated by Trent that you have in mind and provide the criteria you are employing in identifying this dogmatic definition.
I’m not calling scholasticism as an approach to the issue of Justification an infallibly perfect method nor am I saying that there are no other valid methods of approach and I don’t think anyone else here is either. When I call the framework infallible, I’m talking about the anethemas for example – the proclamations “here is what is to be believed” and “here is what is not to be believed”. I hold these to be infallible – do you disagree?
You said on your blog re: the Eucharist & Trent:
Like all dogmas, the Tridentine definition is not the final word, though it is a dogmatically definitive word, on the mystery of the eucharistic change; and like all dogmas, it invites further reflection.
And you seem here to be equating our (Bryan, myself, Andrew) insistence on the infallibility of Trent as saying that Trent was the final word – as if we believed nothing else needed to or could be said of justification. But I for one deny that and I think I know Bryan and Andrew enough to say they would as well.
But why is Trent “dogmatically definitive” regarding the Eucharist and not so re: justification?
“You aren’t saying that Trent isn’t infallible but rather that Trent doesn’t do a great job at explaining justification? Is that a good summary?”
Sean, I am reminded of the following passage from Cardinal Newman:
“[W]hen the Roman schools are treating of one point of theology, they are not treating of other points. When the Council of Trent is treating of man, it is not treating of God. Its enunciations are isolated and defective, taken one by one, of course. If we desire a warmer exhibition of Christian truth than a treatise on Justification admits, we may go to mystical writers such as Schram, whose doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, quoted above in the Advertisement to this edition, is the supplement to an account of formal causes. All theological definitions come short of concrete life. Science is not devotion or literature. If the Fathers are not cold, and the Schoolmen are, this is because the former write in their own persons, and the latter as logicians or disputants. St. Athanasius or St. Augustine has a life, which a system of theology has not. Yet dogmatic theology has its use and its importance notwithstanding.”
Newman’s own sympathies were clear.
For example, the Council of Trent declares that the formal cause of justification is inherent righteousness; but some Catholic theologians have questioned the adequacy of this assertion and have wanted to qualify it by speaking of the Holy Spirit as the “quasi-formal” cause of justification. Ecumenical councils speak their definitive word in time. They speak what is necessary to exclude error. But this does not mean that they speak all that needs to be spoken. Nicaea needed to be followed by I Constantinople; Ephesus followed by Chalcedon; etc.
Trent is particularly difficult for some of us because it is was a Western council that employed a scholastic way of theology that is alien to historic Eastern reflection–and the Catholic Church embraces both West and East–and alien to contemporary Catholic reflection. One of the challenges facing us is to accurately identify the specific Tridentine teaching that is binding on us today. It simply will not do to speak in generalities on this point. That’s not how Catholic theology works. Catholic theologians insist on interpreting Trent within its historical context. What specific errors did the council specifically seek to exclude? Did the council fathers accurately understand and represent the views of the ostensible heretics? Catholic theologians also insist on situating the teaching of any council within the wider context of Christian theology. Do we not distort the Catholic understanding of justification by abstracting it from the doctrines of Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection? The Council of Trent needed to speak an authoritative and irreformable word at a time of theological crisis and confusion; but we need not believe that it was fully and perfectly adequate in all respects in its expression of the mystery of divine revelation.
We should not find this surprising. Just look at the question of the salvation of the unbaptized. The Florentine dogma seems unequivocal and clear, yet Catholic theologians have insisted on thinking beyond the letter of the dogma. Ditto for the doctrine of Purgatory. Pope Benedict’s reflections on purgatory in his recent encyclical Spe Salvi would have been viewed as controversial, if not heretical, to Catholics 500 years ago. But Catholic theology refuses to remain frozen in inadequate doctrinal formulations–hence the willingness of faithful Catholic theologians to argue and debate essential matters of faith and to even force the re-opening of questions once thought closed.
Just as Catholics refuse to be biblical fundamentalists, so they also refuse to be dogma fundamentalists. Our words often prove inadquate in light of that divine revelation to which they point.
“Father Kimel, Please specify the Magisterial document promulgated by the Catholic Church that you have in mind and provide the criteria you are employing in identifying this as a Magisterial document illustrating that the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. ”
Hmmm, how would one go about proving this one way or the other. The Catholic Church enters into a formal agreement on doctrine with the Lutheran World Federation, with the support and approval of the CDC and the Holy Father. In the words of the Common Statement:
“1. On the basis of the agreements reached in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: ‘The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics’ (JD 40). On the basis of this consensus the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: ‘The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration”‘(JD 41).
“2. With reference to the Resolution on the Joint Declaration by the Council of the Lutheran World Federation of 16 June 1998 and the response to the Joint Declaration by the Catholic Church of 25 June 1998 and to the questions raised by both of them, the annexed statement (called ‘Annex’) further substantiates the consensus reached in the Joint Declaration; thus it becomes clear that the earlier mutual doctrinal condemnations do not apply to the teaching of the dialogue partners as presented in the Joint Declaration.
“3. The two partners in dialogue are committed to continued and deepened study of the biblical foundations of the doctrine of justification. They will also seek further common understanding of the doctrine of justification, also beyond what is dealt with in the Joint Declaration and the annexed substantiating statement. Based on the consensus reached, continued dialogue is required specifically on the issues mentioned especially in the Joint Declaration itself (JD 43) as requiring further clarification, in order to reach full church communion, a unity in diversity, in which remaining differences would be ‘reconciled’ and no longer have a divisive force. Lutherans and Catholics will continue their efforts ecumenically in their common witness to interpret the message of justification in language relevant for human beings today, and with reference both to individual and social concerns of our times.
“By this act of signing The Catholic Church and The Lutheran World Federation confirm the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in its entirety.”
Does this sound authoritative to you? What “Catholic Church” was it that entered into this agreement? Was the Magisterium uninvolved? Did it simply slip under the dogmatic radar?
I am not arguing that the Agreement is to be understood on the same level as a conciliar document, but it certainly represents something more than the opinion of a group of theologians. In any case, even if it only represents the consensual opinion of a group of theologians, it is an opinion that was formally permitted and authorized by the Holy Father–and that is sufficient for my purposes. Does the Joint Declaration misrepresent the mind of the Catholic Church? I humbly suggest that the burden of proving the “orthodoxy” of the Joint Declaration lies not on the shoulders of this poor priest but on those who would deny its orthodoxy.
Fr. Kimel, you wrote; “Something is wrong if after a presentation of St Paul’s doctrine of justification everyone should find themselves worrying more about their mortal and venial sins than they are rejoicing in the unmerited love and grace of God. If that is the result, then, I humbly suggest, St Paul’s thought has not been presented accurately. Luther may have gotten Paul wrong at critical points (and Feingold identifies a couple of them), but I think Luther also re-discovered in St Paul something that the Western tradition had forgotten, namely, that the authentic preaching of the gospel leads to joy, faith, gratitude, and assurance, not to morbid introspection and the fear of hell.”
I hope to have a Priest like you, if, or when, I become Catholic. I love your humble attitude and appreciation for Luther. I hope you preach this every Sunday:) In Christ, Jeremy Tate
Father,
Concerning your comment #29: Certainly historical and cultural factors supervene upon dogmatic definitions. But they do not swallow up those definitions. I believe that my comment #24 addresses one aspect of Catholic dogma, whether defined here or these or such and so, that transcends these temporal aspects; namely, the truth of the matter.
As Tim indicated (#28), and as your affirmations of Trent testify, I do not think that we are at cross-purposes on essential questions of fact. The difference in our perspectives (I speak only for myself, of course) seems to be a matter of method, in particular, a hermeneutical question: How might a later dogmatic definition be brought to bear upon the text of Scripture? I also address this in #24.
As to the authoritative status of the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement in the Catholic Church: I think you come a little short of answering my question! My quote from Trent explicitly states upon whose authority the document is promulgated (named by name, the highest living upon earth). Your quote refers to the “Catholic Church,” an venerable institution, but who is doing the referring and by whom are they delegated so to refer? Of course the Vatican knows about the document. That is little to the point. The Magisterium knows about much. It doesn’t ipso facto teach those things.
As to questioning the “orthodoxy” of the Joint Statement: Who has done that? Your statements, or mine, or anybody’s in this very comment box might be perfectly orthodox, but what is that to their dogmatic authority? The question is one of authority, as taught by the Magisterium, not orthodoxy, as judged by what you or I suppose to be conformable to actual Magisterial teachings. So you see, you have shifted the terms of the question, which remains, I am sad to say, entirely unanswered.
Once more, in terms of material truth, we are probably not greatly at odds on the Joint Statement itself, nor on the vital issues of salvation, justification, assurance and the whole panoply of good things that impact the human subject in all kinds of ways when the light of the Gospel of grace and forgiveness dawns upon him. Certainly Augustine the African man and mother’s son has as much to say to the point as St. Thomas Aquinas the Catholic, scholastic theologian. And vice versa.
For some reason, scholasticism raises ire, and it seems that that includes your ire (judging from the blunt language), as though it were to be blamed for being Western and reasonable and thorough and Aristotelian (some of it) and medieval, much more than other schools are to be blamed for evincing the “contrary” characteristics: Eastern and unreasonable and Neo-platonic, or post-scholastic, existential/quasi-critical Catholic Barthianism.
God knows the seminarians had it rough under the regime of Garrigou-Lagrange. But there is such a thing as over-reaction. Heidegger and Gadamer, et al, are just as pagan as the Philosopher, though less reasonable, and with less excuse.
It is possible to know what the Catholic Church teaches on justification , and the way to know that is to consult her teaching. St. Paul is a great place to start, and the best way to get to know the truth of his teaching is to consult other sources of infallible teaching, which are not hard to find, and less hard to identify than you seem to suppose. The propositions of the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement are worth consideration, but they might be wrong. Trent is a bit of a different case, wouldn’t you say?
Fr. Kimel is right because as you go, I think, you will find it is not as easy to read dogmas of the councils in as wooden a fashion as we might tend, especially coming from Protestantism. If the Catholic Jay of 4 years ago heard myself say that, I would call myself a heretic. But the fact remains and Fr. Kimel has wisdom on this subject.
Consider what he wrote: “For example, the Council of Trent declares that the formal cause of justification is inherent righteousness; but some Catholic theologians have questioned the adequacy of this assertion and have wanted to qualify it by speaking of the Holy Spirit as the “quasi-formal” cause of justification. Ecumenical councils speak their definitive word in time.”
This is because of the problems of “created grace,” which I believe is a legitimate issue that needs to be clarified. Pope St. Leo’s Tome was not clear enough in its day: it could be understood in both a Cyrilline and in a Neo-Nestorian sense, and was interpret both ways. The 5th ande 6th councils met to clarify, and so on.
-Jay
“When I call the framework infallible, I’m talking about the anethemas for example – the proclamations ‘here is what is to be believed’ and ‘here is what is not to be believed’. I hold these to be infallible – do you disagree?”
Tim, before answering your question directly, let me first point out that within the Catholic Church there is much debate on the proper interpretation of conciliar decrees and canons. I refer you, e.g., to Michael Sullivan’s *Creative Fidelity*. The hermeneutics of dogma is no less complicated and challenging than the hermeneutics of Holy Scripture.
Assuming that the conciliar canons in question are doctrinal, rather than disciplinary, I have no problems with saying that they provide us with an authoritative dogmatic framework (boundary markers, if you will), as long as we recognize that these canons must themselves be interpreted within their historic and theological context.
But I’m not sure how this helps us in our interpretation of St Paul. You guys have taken me to task for suggesting that Dr Feingold’s lecture on St Paul and justification is more Tridentine than Pauline. I do not believe that Feingold has given us sound critical-historical exegesis of the Apostle; rather, he has anachronistically imported into St Paul the scholastic theology of Aquinas and Trent. Joseph Fitzmyer, in my opinion, provides a more reliable reading of the Apostle.
You have responded by asserting the hermeneutical authority of Trent. I have not denied this authority. I simply want scholars who purport to present us with the teaching of St Paul to give us St Paul and not St Thomas Aquinas. I want the Apostle to be interpreted on his own terms (to the extent that is humanly possible for us) and not interpreted to us through conceptualities unknown to the Apostle. I want to hear the voice of Paul himself, before he is assimilated to the later theological tradition.
Fr. Kimel,
You have denied any authoritative status to the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification. Do you realize the implications of what you have said? If you are right, then the Catholic Church has in fact lied to the world–and specifically, she has lied to the Protestant world. She has asserted a theological agreement on justification where no binding agreement in reality exists–and she has done this with full knowledge and assent of the Holy Father. Are you really willing to say this?
Cardinal Dulles, as you know, wrote:
Cardinal Scheffcyzyk said something very similar about the JD. And Christopher Malloy writes:
You yourself praised Malloy’s book in your 2006 Amazon review. Regarding the disproving of the JD’s ‘orthodoxy’, I think Malloy does just that in his book.
I also think your claim that if one denies that the JD has doctrinal authority, one is implying that the Catholic Church has “lied to the world”, is simply not true, because it misunderstands the theological and ecclesial implications of Cardinal Cassidy’s signing of the document. Of course Cardinal Cassidy represented the Catholic Church in a certain capacity, namely, as president of the PCPCU. But the PCPCU does not have the same authority as the Roman Pontiff, and John Paul II’s approval was merely informal, and therefore not authoritative. As Malloy says, “Short of specific and formal approval by the Papal See, documents issuing from the PCPCU command no assent from the faithful.” The document therefore does not meet the criteria even for the third grade of assent: i.e. religious submission of will and intellect.
Therefore, I think there is very good reason to believe that Trent is still the last word (up till now) for Catholics, regarding justification.
Ecumenical councils speak their definitive word in time. They speak what is necessary to exclude error. But this does not mean that they speak all that needs to be spoken. Nicaea needed to be followed by I Constantinople; Ephesus followed by Chalcedon; etc.
Nobody here denies that. But Constantinople I did not deny the doctrines infallibly set down by Nicea, nor did Chalcedon deny the doctrines infallibly set down by Ephesus. Likewise, any future teaching of the Catholic Church on justification cannot deny what was infallibly set down in Trent 6.
Trent is particularly difficult for some of us because it is was a Western council that employed a scholastic way of theology that is alien to historic Eastern reflection–and the Catholic Church embraces both West and East–and alien to contemporary Catholic reflection.
I’m not sure how you are using the term ‘difficult’. Difficult to believe? Difficult to understand? Predicates such as ‘difficult’ are relational, and therefore can say just as much (or more) about the speaker than about the referent. But difficulty is not the question. Truth is the question. Did the Holy Spirit ensure that what Trent 6 says is true? A Catholic must say yes. The fact that an Ecumenical Council makes use of scholastic theology does not detract from the authority or infallibility of that Council; rather, it confirms the scholastic theology, as used in that capacity. Otherwise the fact that Nicea made use of Greek philosophy could be used to call Nicea into question. Grace elevates nature. The union of nature with grace does not nullify grace.
One of the challenges facing us is to accurately identify the specific Tridentine teaching that is binding on us today.
I’m assuming that the only reason you are saying this is because you [mistakenly] think that the JD is doctrinally authoritative. If we [you and I] were to agree that the JD is not doctrinal authoritative, then you would agree that you face no challenge regarding accurately identifying which Tridentine teachings on justification are binding on us today. The answer would be clear: all of them.
hence the willingness of faithful Catholic theologians to argue and debate essential matters of faith and to even force the re-opening of questions once thought closed.
There’s that word again: “faithful”, undefined, as if heretics are intrinsically unable to affix the term to themselves. Presumably by “questions once thought closed” you are talking about the decrees or canons of Trent 6. But it is not some secret subset of those decrees and canons that are infallible. They are all infallible truths, and therefore the Church has no authority to revoke them, as she has no authority to revoke the Creed. And therefore, if “faithful” theologians can challenge the infallibly defined dogmas of the Church, then what is the principled difference between a “faithful” theologian and a heretical theologian? What is the principled difference between someone who “refuses to be a dogma fundamentalist”, and a heretic? If there is no principled difference between heretical theologians and “faithful” theologians, then “faithful” doesn’t mean anything.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
It is understandable that Westerners, such as, to my knowledge, everyone participating in this thread, would be open to the insights of the East as sheding fresh light upon old problems. Of course.
Even so, an Eastern Catholic, thoroughly familiar with the the theologies of Dionysius and the Damascene, the Cappadocians and all Greek and Oriental and Slavic luminaries, might find that the remote and exotic schoolmen, minds ablaze with the light of the most ancient and venerable Latin tradition, did clarify and, in the best possible sense, relativize the thought and acheivements of the Eastern fathers, who are, as everyone knows, the products of their cultural and linguistic advantages and limitations.
“Scholasticism” is, to the newly awakened Eastern mind, provincial in itself, universal in humanity, intellectual poetry, a love of truth so pure as to dispense with all literary artifice, content to expose itself in the light of revelation as truth, truth as believed, faith a kind of knowledge, more certain than philosophy, which is likewise knowledge, knowledge a union with the mind of God, who is truth, and one, and yet speaks, through the many, and these propositions are not mere sentences, sinced they are true or false, and the mind that loves the truth, the man who seeks God, reasons therefore, and his reason, being human, is universal.
The provincial theologian of the East, awake to the rational humanity of the deified flesh, understand anew in the light of the West, which relativizes the Taboric light, surpassing and being surpassed (for the mind of the schoolman is not jealous), realizes for the first time that his fathers are Greek, as well as human, and prays for those who (being only provincial and jealous) are less than he, insofar as he knows the glory of the school of those who comment upon upon the sentences, and that the words are human, and universal, as well as Latin.
The enlightened Greek did not pause to consider those Latins who shirk their own patrimony, Greek-parroting (for only a schoolman can understand, as well as speak, Greek) as though the schools were only relativized, and not human, and divine, as though the Holy Spirit did not descend in fire upon the plains of Italy, and France, and the whole of Europe, our mother.
Yes, well put. I certainly don’t shirk the west, btw. I am a Latin rite Catholic.
I cannot see how somebody can label the Joint Declaration as authoritative but not the canons of Trent…
I also do not see how the Joint Declaration violates or changes or adds anything to Trent.
Bryan,
I was not listened to Feingold’s lecture yet, but I think Fr. Kimel makes a very valid point about something being off when a presentation of the Doctrine of Justification is followed up with a series of questions about mortal and venial sins.
When I first read the Joint Declaration on Justification it was a major breaking point for me really considering the Catholic Church. Do you see the JD as misrepresenting the magisterial position? I understand that you are making a separate point in your conversation with Fr. Kimel, but it sounds like you are not appreciative of the JD. If the JD is off on justification, then for me, even if the Catholic Church is true, it is nothing to get excited about. I believe that Trent is true and infallible (I think), but its colored with the particular heresies it was dealing with. The Catholic Church was forced to condemn a false doctrine of justification, even though Luther’s doctrine emphasized in a radical way, God’s love and grace. This makes it seem like the Catholic Church is condemning free unmerited grace, which it is not. Peter Kreeft makes a point about this in, “The God who Loves you” (p.23) when he speaks of his indebtedness to Luther. Just because the Catholic Church condemns sola fide, does not mean that a condemnation of sola fide even needs to be mentioned in a presentation of justification. I see Rome as teaching that all of salvation is a free gift, from grace alone, and one powerful enough to work a complete change in the internal disposition of the heart of those who recieve it by faith. I gather this from everything I’ve read and particularly John Paul’s emphasis on conversion and evangelization.
Jeremy,
First, I don’t know how much you know about statistics, but when your sample size is one, then you don’t have enough information to determine much of anything. Therefore, the fact that this particular talk was followed by some questions about the distinction between mortal and venial sins does not establish anything about the talk. There were a variety of people at the talk, and some were Protestants who were unfamiliar with the distinction between mortal and venial sins. When Protestants who are unfamiliar with the distinction between mortal and venial sin hear the Catholic doctrine that it is possible to lose one’s justification through commission of a mortal sin, it is quite natural for them to ask for the distinction between mortal and venial sin. The fact that they were asking about this does not say anything about the truth of the doctrine of justification presented in the talk. Even if it did establish something (which it doesn’t) about the talk, looking to the questions to evaluate the truth of the doctrine presented in the talk implies a pragmatic notion of truth, i.e. that we adjust the message until we get the kind of result we’re looking for. But we must teach what the Church defines infallibly, regardless of the results. And I think that is what Prof. Feingold did; I recommend listening to the talk, and the Q&A, before making any judgments.
Regarding the JD, see the Cardinal Dulles article in the link in [#35] above. And I highly recommend Christopher Malloy’s book Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration.
If the JD is off on justification, then for me, even if the Catholic Church is true, it is nothing to get excited about.
That depends on what we love. The truth-lover finds the greatest joy in the truth. If the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, then if Christ is a source of joy to us, then so will be His Mystical Body, the Church.
This makes it seem like the Catholic Church is condemning free unmerited grace, which it is not. Peter Kreeft makes a point about this in, “The God who Loves you” (p.23) when he speaks of his indebtedness to Luther. Just because the Catholic Church condemns sola fide, does not mean that a condemnation of sola fide even needs to be mentioned in a presentation of justification. I see Rome as teaching that all of salvation is a free gift, from grace alone, and one powerful enough to work a complete change in the internal disposition of the heart of those who receive it by faith. I gather this from everything I’ve read and particularly John Paul’s emphasis on conversion and evangelization.
I agree with everything you said here. After you listen to the talk, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts on it.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, Christopher Malloy’s book on the Joint Declaration is a thoughtful, well-informed book that needs to be part of the theological conversation; but it only represents the opinion of one man. Against his private opinion, and the opinion of Cardinal Dulles, is the simple fact of the Joint Declaration, an official document signed by representatives of the Vatican in the name of the Catholic Church, with the approval of the CDC and the Holy Father. As the Common Statement makes clear, the Holy See affirmed the document in its entirety and formally declared that the anathemas of Trent do not apply to the “Lutheran” formulation of justification as it is presented in the JD.
The JD is an authoritative document of a unique kind. It does not enjoy the kind of authority to which the Catholic must give binding assent. Theologians may raise questions about it and criticize it. But the simple fact remains that the contents of this document were thoroughly reviewed, critiqued, and finally approved by the Holy Office. At the very least one must say that the construal of Catholic doctrine found in this document is a permitted, and indeed officially sanctioned, construal. It cannot simply be dismissed as “un-Catholic.” I know I do not have the authority to dismiss it. Do you?
When I first read Cardinal Dulles’s criticisms of the Joint Declaration, I immediately rang up Richard Neuhaus. The JD had played an important role in my own decision to become Catholic. Richard calmly reminded me that Dulles’s opinions were simply the opinions of one Catholic theologian, and I, and he, were free to disagree with him. I could “hear” him smiling in the background: “Two Catholics, three opinions.”
A few years ago I had a conversation with a theologian who works in the CDC. I was trying to understand the levels of magisterial authority of different kinds of documents, with specific reference to the JD. This is a kind of obsession peculiar to Catholics. The theologian finally got exasperated with me. “Stop worrying about ‘levels of authority,’ Al. Focus on the question ‘Is it true?’” It was important for me to hear this. Theology is so much more than the cataloguing of magisterial assertions, what Karl Rahner disparaged as “Denzinger theology.” Theology is apprehension of and reflection upon the truth.
I think I have said enough on this topic for the moment, so I will sign off and let you all continue the conversation. God bless.
Fr. Kimel,
“Stop worrying about ‘levels of authority,’ Al. Focus on the question ‘Is it true?’”
If that’s what we believed, then we would be no different from Protestants. In order to have faith as Catholics, we need to know who and what has authority, and what authority they have. Otherwise, it is each man for himself, and we’re rationalists by default. Disparaging a concern for understanding the degrees of magisterial authority by means of a derogatory label like “Denzinger theology” doesn’t falsify or refute it in the least. Ironically, it seems to me that whoever told you the line above (“Stop worrying about levels of authority ….”), didn’t tell you something true. The line is in that respect almost self-refuting. (See my comments here.) When Eve was faced with her choice in the garden, the tempter could have given her this very line. But it wasn’t for her to determine for herself whose word was true (God’s or Satan’s), but in obedience to trust as true the One having the higher authority. That’s the whole purpose of faith in this present life.
Theology is apprehension of and reflection upon the truth.
That may be true of natural theology, but sacred theology involves faith, which requires a recognition of and submission to ecclesial authority, on account of the divine authority invested in her by Christ Himself.
May God grant to us all true faith, and true wisdom about these questions, that we may be in true unity, as we know that He wishes us to be. Thank you for talking with me about this Fr. Kimel. (Out of great respect for you I was reluctant to voice my disagreement, but this was important enough that I couldn’t stay silent. I hope you understand.)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
I do not think Fr. Kimel is saying that Trent does not hold authority, or that the JD is of equal footing or more authoritative. He is saying that though Trent is authoritative and infallible, it doesn’t mean that it is the best or most adequate explanation of Pauline theology on Justification. Being infallible does not entail being most adequate. I believe Fr. Kimel was making the claim that Conciliar declarations provide boundary markers, not necessary lenses through which we must understand the truth of doctrines. Truth is in the essence of the docrine, not necessarily in the way it is formulated. As far as trent goes, it presents an infallable teaching on the doctrine of Justification, but not a required way of looking at the doctrine. No one is under any obligation to understand Justification with the lens of the Tridentine fathers, though by no means are they permissed to step outside the boundary markers into those things condemned by Trent. I think this is what Fr. Kimel was trying to say. I can’t see any problem with it. This is the way the Church opperates; this is Vatican II.
Jared, if he had said what you said, we probably wouldn’t have taken an issue with him. But it was precisely the word “infallible” as applied to Trent that he objected to in our usage. None of us have ever claimed nor approached claiming that Trent was exhaustively adequate as if nothing else could be said on the matter. To reiterate what I said (and was not responded to):
And you seem here to be equating our (Bryan, myself, Andrew) insistence on the infallibility of Trent as saying that Trent was the final word – as if we believed nothing else needed to or could be said of justification. But I for one deny that and I think I know Bryan and Andrew enough to say they would as well.
Now don’t get me wrong or Bryan or Andrew, we all have tremendous respect for Father Kimel. But I think we simply have to take issue with the way he’s wording it. Bryan brought up a good example -re: ‘don’t worry about levels of authority just worry about truth’. It is precisely when one wants to worry about truth that he will ask these questions about varying levels of authority.
Jared,
Fr. Kimel’s complain from the very beginning was that Mr. Feingold used scholastic language to talk about justification. If what you’re saying is true – what you’re saying is what Bryan, Tim, and Andrew are saying – and if Fr. Kimel actually said what you claim he said, then I don’t see why he would have such a problem with Mr. Feingold using scholastic language to describe justification.
Ok, here is where I think what Fr. Kimel was emphasizing. From my estimation, he is saying that it is better to dialoge with portestants from the starting ground of JD. According to Fr Kimel, the JD occupies a status more than mere opinion, and that since the Church has authorized the JD, and since it is in line with Catholic dogma, and also more protestant friendly, then it is best to start there. To dialogue with portestants starting with the JD is more useful because it does reflect Catholic teaching, but does so without the more complicated( as it were) terms and concepts of Trent. And if this is the point he was making, I agree with him. It may be a good idea to save Trent for later, seeing that a great many Catholics who have converted to Catholicism from Protestantism did so via the JD formulations, and if unity is what we are seeking, and the JD has demonstrated to be more efficient, it would be prudent to start and focus much attention there. As far as the original post is concerned, however, I believe Mr. Feingold does a splendid job explaining Justification the way he does. It is easy for us to say this,though, but maybe not so for protestants.
Here is my final two cents on this one, and thanks to Father Kimel and others for a healthy to and fro–I like the action.
Cardinal Newman makes “Conservative Action Upon its Past” a Note of genuine doctrinal development. I believe that some of us are insisting upon this Note, not to the exclusion of Chronic Vigor and Power of Assimilation or, in general, any of those dynamic Notes of the living doctrine of the living Church. Likewise, I doubt that anyone else here is denying the conservative element of Catholic doctrine.
It may also be that genuine, though subtle, differences of philosophical hermeneutics are doing a lot of the work in keeping us Catholic folk at (seeming) cross-purposes in this thread. No worries. As our Protestant friends will point out: No level of Authority, at least this side of the beatific vision (the one St. John talks about, you non-scholastic Process, I mean Taboric, theologians), can obviate the need for interpretation, I mean, a human being using his own judgment in discerning the meaning of a text (and how much goes into that kind of thing!). Trent is a text. Fr. Kimel’s words about Trent and other texts are a text, and so forth. So, what is it to read a text, and how is it that things like meaning and truth reside therein? Or are we just reading for fun–like making gingerbread house? (Is reading making?–No I say No–) How much “creative” does the reader bring to his would be “fidelity” to (faith in) the deliverances of Authority? Does a different set of readers imply a different meaning in a text? And so forth.
Hermeneutics is something everyone has got to tackle, or get run over by, and it is philosophical. But this is a comment, and I want to end it. Hermeneutical subjectivism is self-destructive. Meaning is in the text, formally, and therefore objectively. The significance of a text may change relative to time and place, but its meaning does not. Such is my hermeneutical philosophy. It is not a popular position. The arguments I suppress.
As to the matter of Reason and Authority, Cardinal Newman cites St. Augustine to the point:
St. Augustine, who had tried both ways, strikingly contrasts them in his De Utilitate credendi, though his direct object in that work is to decide, not between Reason and Faith, but between Reason and Authority. He addresses in it a very dear friend, who, like himself, had become a Manichee, but who, with less happiness than his own, was still retained in the heresy.
“The Manichees,” he observes, “inveigh against those who, following the authority of the Catholic faith, fortify themselves in the first instance with believing, and before they are able to set eyes upon that truth, which is discerned by the pure soul, prepare themselves for a God who shall illuminate.
You, Honoratus, know that nothing else was the cause of my falling into their hands, than their professing to put away Authority which was so terrible, and by absolute and simple Reason to lead their hearers to God’s presence, and to rid them of all error.
For what was there else that forced me, for nearly nine years, to slight the religion which was sown in me when a child by my parents, and to follow them and diligently attend their lectures, but their assertion that I was terrified by superstition, and was bidden to have Faith before I had Reason, whereas they pressed no one to believe before the truth had been discussed and unravelled?
Who would not be seduced by these promises, and especially a youth, such as they found me then, desirous of truth, nay conceited and forward, by reason of the disputations of certain men of school learning, with a contempt of old-wives’ tales, and a desire of possessing and drinking that clear and unmixed truth which they promised me?”
Presently he goes on to describe how he was reclaimed. He found the Manichees more successful in pulling down than in building up; he was disappointed in Faustus, whom he found eloquent and nothing besides. Upon this, he did not know what to hold, and was tempted to a general scepticism.
At length he found he must be guided by Authority; then came the question, Which authority among so many teachers? He cried earnestly to God for help, and at last was led to the Catholic Church.
He then returns to the question urged against that Church, that “she bids those who come to her believe,” whereas heretics “boast that they do not impose a yoke of believing, but open a fountain of teaching.” On which he observes, “True religion cannot in any manner be rightly embraced, without a belief in those things which each individual afterwards attains and perceives, if he behave himself well and shall deserve it, nor altogether without some weighty and imperative Authority.”
An Essay of the Development of Christian Doctrine, 330-31.
Trent is a text.
Of course, it is the Tridentine Decrees and Canons that are a text. Trent itself is a Church Council.