One
of the major complaints even sympathetic and ecumenically-minded Christians
outside of the Roman communion have with Roman Catholicism is that its teaching
can so often only be reconciled with Scriptural emphases once the “fine print”,
that is, the subtle distinctions and qualifications, are taken into account.
This applies to teaching on salvation, in particular. The result of this is
that the popular teaching, or popular understanding of that teaching among the
laypeople can conform to the worst stereotypes of unevangelical religion.
For
example, if one reads the following two excerpts written by converts from
Protestantism to Catholicism, one can not help but be shocked at the poor grasp
of God’s grace amongst ordinary Roman Catholics to which they testify.
Professor Peter Kreeft says “At Heaven's gate our entrance ticket, according to
Scripture and Church dogma, is not our good works or our sincerity, but our
faith, which glues us to Jesus. He saves us; we do not save ourselves. But I
find, incredibly, that 9 out of 10 Catholics do not know this, the absolutely
central, core, essential dogma of Christianity. Protestants are right: most
Catholics do in fact believe a whole other religion. Well over 90% of students
I have polled who have had 12 years of catechism classes, even Catholic high
schools, say they expect to go to Heaven because they tried, or did their best,
or had compassionate feelings to everyone, or were sincere. They hardly ever
mention Jesus. Asked why they hope to be saved, they mention almost anything
except the Savior.”. [1] Steve
Wood remembers something similar from his days as a Protestant evangelist:
“I
used Ephesians 2:8-9 to convince Catholics that it was imperative for them to
leave the Church: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —
and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no
one can boast. First I would say, "The Bible says
that salvation is by grace and not by works. Right?" Their answer was
always yes. Then I would say, "The Catholic Church teaches that salvation
is by works. Right?" (I never
met a Catholic who did not say yes. Every
Catholic I met during my twenty years of ministry confirmed my misconception
that Catholicism taught salvation is by works instead of grace.) ”.[2]
Therefore, we believe it is essential that the Church’s teaching on all aspects of soteriology be presented as evangelically and patristically as possible, without leaving important qualifications in the background. This has to mean avoiding emphasis on what amounts to mere mediaeval Western speculation or theological opinion, rather than the modest amount of what is de Fide, and integrating the insights of East and West.
To begin with the Scriptures, the evidence for an intermediate state is certainly present, but never tied together explicitly in any one place. St Paul teaches that the process of perfecting of the soul can continue right up till the return of Christ (Philippians 1.6, 1 Thessalonians 5.23,24). Since the souls of the dead are conscious in the time before the Final Judgement, and the righteous and the wicked must have different experiences of this state (Luke 16.22f), then a particular judgement after death is inescapable for those who do not live until the Parousia (cf. Hebrews 9.27). The necessity of mortification, suffering or discipline to connect and conform us to the transforming power of the Cross is taught repeatedly in the New Testament (Matthew 10.38, Romans 8.13,17, Hebrews 12.5-13). While these passages are directed primarily towards Christians’ time on this earth, their relevance after death becomes clearer when we compare them with passages which refer to a temporary punishment or fire associated with judgement (Matthew 5.25-26?, Mark 9.49, Luke 12.47-48?, 1 Corinthians 3.12-15).[3] That these fiery, post mortem punishments are similar in purpose to the earthly trials may be inferred from Wisdom 3.4-6, which is comparing earthly sufferings to fiery purification in its original context. That this purging is a purifying encounter with the holiness of Christ is revealed in Malachi 3.2,3. The only difficulty left is that the most natural reading of those verses talking about fiery trials for Christians after death is that they refer to Final Judgement. However, given that virtually all references to divine judgement in the New Testament concentrate on the Last Day, and yet we know that the process actually begins earlier for all the dead in Christ, this is perhaps not important. It may simply be a reflection of the profoundly eschatological focus of New Testament piety.[4]
Not all Christians are seen to need a completion of the purifying process at particular judgement in the New Testament. In particular, the Martyrs are seen as already in Heaven and sharing Christ’s reign in Revelation 6.9-11, 7.9-17 and 20.4-6 before the Final Judgement. This is in conformity with the Cross-centred doctrine of sanctification in the New Testament.
That we may pray for the dead is implied by a number of Scriptures in the New Testament. While Paul’s prayer of 1 Thessalonians 5.23,24 is for those living at the time, its “open-ended” nature means it is also effectively a prayer for them after their deaths. His prayer for Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1.18 may be an example of prayer for the dead also, due to the way he distinguishes between him and his household (1.16, 4.20), with apparently only the latter referred to as contemporaneous. The reference to baptism for the dead, mentioned without rebuke in 1 Corinthians 15.29, intimates that the living can benefit the dead through a sacrament of redemption. There is also, of course, the explicit evidence of 2 Maccabees 12.40-45.
It has to be admitted that a clear consensus patrum on the intermediate state was a long time coming and that, even in its mature form, the doctrine developed somewhat differently in East and West. Nevertheless, the differences are often overstated – in all genuine essentials both traditions agree.[5] Early on, we can find Fathers who say no Christian reaches the Beatific Vision until the Eschaton, and others who say the Saints can and do. We can find Fathers who posit purgatorial fires between the Particular Judgement and the Final Judgement, and others who see that trial happening only at the end. There are those who seem not to know anything for Christians to fear beyond death, and others who do. While there are many liturgical prayers for the dead, many seem directed towards seeking mercy for the Last Day (cf. St Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus), and those that seek for earlier comforts say nothing explicit of deliverance from punishments. Sic et non appears to be the rule rather than the exception. However, eventually we see a general trend towards differentiating between the condition of those of heroic sanctity and the more flawed, ordinary Christians, and there is acceptance that the latter may need to suffer in some way to complete their repentance.
Eastern protests against harsh and legalistic conceptions of the intermediate state, that is, those that are based on simply satisfying a debt through horrific torture by material fire, and on positing a separate physical place for this state, are echoed by many Anglican Catholics. However, these elements in the mediaeval Western picture of Purgatory are neither necessitated by the dogmatic decrees of the Roman Catholic Church nor a fair reflection of more recent understandings of the subject, we are happy to observe.
Liturgical separation of All Saints and All Souls plus similar distinctions in prayers in Catholic Eucharistic and burial rites[6] (between “capital S” Saints and the dead in Christ for whom we pray) prove an acceptance of two main categories within the faithful departed, one in glory (though “incomplete” without resurrection), the other not yet so.
There is a broad consensus, therefore, that
1. There is an intermediate state which involves spiritual progress and the suffering of, at the very least, a temporary deficiency in full enjoyment of God as compared to the blessed dead in Heaven, and,
2. Though the relation to time is uncertain, there are also positive purgatorial punishments for some that are at once disciplinary and retributory.
3. Prayers of the Church militant and triumphant aid this process of sanctification.
4. Not all Christians need to go through this intermediate state, but instead their souls are in Heaven.
While all agree that only Christ can take away our sins, it remains true that we have the ability and responsibility to undo the effects of that sin in ourselves and on others by good works (Proverbs 16.6, Luke 3.8, 19.8, 1 Peter 4.8). Comparing Revelation 19.8 to 7.14 both shows the connection between the merits of Christ and those of his saints and illustrates that those merits may be considered a single corporate entity as well as individuated. Colossians 1.24 can be interpreted to mean that St Paul’s patient and obedient endurance of sufferings were a kind of continuation of and participation in Christ’s self-offering, making that historic Sacrifice present in action. There is no suggestion that the Apostle’s sufferings are beneficial through a transfer of merit in this context, but rather that his ministry which led to him being in chains was the instrument of blessing. Nevertheless, the language used encourages an understanding of Christian good works as spiritual sacrifices which, in union with Christ’s Passion, assist the wider church as part of the baptismal priesthood. Given that every other priesthood in Biblical history has sacrifice undergirding intercession, the sensus plenior of this Pauline statement remains relevant.[7] 2 Corinthians 2.5-11 appears to be the application of an “indulgence” by St Paul, since verse 7 implies that the excommunication should end for reasons of mercy rather than strict justice. So, overall, the Scriptural evidence indicates that our good works (including graciously accepted sufferings) can benefit the doer by an increase of grace and glory (merit) or by purifying him or her of the “remains of sin”. They can also, when united with intercessory intent and the infinite merits of the Cross, help purify and deliver others.[8] This process is operative particularly through the Apostolic authority of the Church, as the passages in 2 Corinthians show.
However, Anglican Catholics would be unhappy with a regime that so focussed on juridically sanctioned indulgences acquired mainly for the dead, that the more general blessings associated with any good work and devout prayer were pushed into the background. Indulgences must surely be seen as a small part of a broad and deep devotion to investing in sanctification and eternity, building up the Church, and glorifying God by faith active through love. It must also be kept in mind that, indulgences or not, God does “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” or deserve (Ephesians 3.20 cf. Ezra 9.13). The fact that extra-sacramental indulgences were not present till the second millennium shows they are, while valid, hardly essential to the life of the Church.[9] The mutual edification and superabundance of mercy exemplified and applied in indulgences pre-existed them and must therefore still be active outside the power of the keys.
The doctrines of the Treasury of Merits and Indulgences manifest the evangelical principle that there is no rigid demand by God for perfectly just retribution on or restitution from the repentant sinner himself, since the equity between the suffering patiently undergone or good work and the consequent reward or relaxation of punishment is not strict, but supplied by the application of the infinite merits of Christ.[10] We note with pleasure that the RCC distinguishes between indulgences applied to the living by the power of the keys[11] (with the degree of efficacy dependent upon their degree of contrition and charity) and those applied to the dead by supplication only. These qualifications show that these doctrines need not be seen as treating spiritual realities in an artificial or materialistic fashion by reducing prayer and sanctification to mathematical transactions.
One problem perceived by both Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Catholic traditions is the difficulty of explaining how purgatorial or penitential sufferings can be seen as a means of spiritual progress in the context of the Roman Catholic belief that these sufferings can be lessened by vicarious suffering or meriting by living Christians. If the punishments are purely retributionary and unrelated to interior transformation, then transferring moral credit is all that is required to diminish them.[12] But if they are seen as remedial as well, how do the virtuous actions or forbearances of one person benefit another? It is possible that in the same way that receiving love is not only beneficial to the recipient but also capable of transforming them if they respond to it in gratitude and joy, so in the communion of saints (Ephesians 4.15,16) the love expressed in these intercessions for the dead may be communicated as an active principle. Then the good works of one person could benefit another internally as well as externally.
(It is interesting to note that even the “retributionary” aspect of discipline for Christians is seen by St Thomas Aquinas as qualitatively different from the punishment of the unforgiven (S.T. II(1) Q87 A6). Indeed, he sees the acceptance of such discipline by Christians as proceeding from a virtuous desire and decision of their own to conform to justice and make amends: in other words it is a voluntary act of love.)
[3] Those passages with question marks are the subject of exegetical dispute as to whether they concern the punishment of hell or, as assumed here, those eventually destined for heaven.
[4] Evangelicals would tend to object to this whole line of thinking as inconsistent with the repeated affirmations of free and complete forgiveness through Christ in the Bible, and with the statement of John 5.24. However, they need to integrate, as Catholics have, these verses with others clearly teaching that Christians will stand accountable for what they have done, even if they are destined for Heaven. E.g., Romans 14.10,12, 2 Corinthians 5.10.
[5] As shown in the excellent discussion at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/get-clean.html .
[6] We see this distinction in the Book of Common Prayer as well. For example, the 1962 Canadian BCP the Prayer of Intercession after the Offertory distinguishes between “all [God’s] servants departed this life in [his] faith and fear” and “all who in life and death have glorified [God]”.
[7] Cf. 2 Corinthians 4.10-15, especially verse 12.
[8] The reward of good works is applicable directly only to the doer of them, but indirectly to others, living or dead, by connection to an intercessory intent. This is by virtue of the principles that “the prayer of a righteous man avails much”, that the more we conform ourselves to the will of God, the more our prayers are heard, and because “love covers a multitude of sins”. And if we are all priests offering spiritual sacrifices, this implies a connection with our intercessory duties, as mentioned above. Thus our merits are not really transferable in themselves, but they coinhere with Christ’s infinite merits and empower our supplication. Theories of supererogation are not necessary in this context.
[9] Contrary to popular belief, indulgences were not entirely limited to the West in the second millennium. Various Orthodox Churches had “Absolution Certificates” which could be purchased at one time. This practice resulted from Western influence, began in the 16th century and virtually ended in the 18th. For a historical overview of embryonic indulgences and “transferred” merit in the first millenium, as well as later abuses, the article on Indulgences in The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. VII (1910) is still one of the best concise references.
[10] See Aquinas, S.T. III Q. 49, A. 3, Reply Obj. 2
[11] This kind of indulgence was accepted as legitimate in the Seventeenth Century by Bishop John Cosin (who helped in the revision of the BCP) and other Anglican theologians, at least as applied to ecclesiastical penances.
[12] This is in fact the argument of Aquinas in Summa Theologica Suppl. Q. 71, A. 2 cf. Suppl. Q. 13, A. 2, Reply Obj. 1.