Penitent Thief and Purgatory

[christian2112]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

Our call is to love God with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength. As God, He deserves nothing less.

When a person, say “Jim,” accepts Jesus Christ in faith and begins to walk with the Lord on a daily basis, does he grow according to the demands of the gospel? I would say “yes.”
In other words, once a person comes to believe, at that moment:
–do they love God above all things with all their heart, mind, soul and strength as Jesus commands us? I would say “no.”
–do they love their neighbor as themselves as perfectly as Christ wants us to? I would say “no.”
–are they as poor in spirit as Jesus calls us to be? I would say “no.”
–are the habits and inclinations to sin (which therefore constitute a tendency away from God) from their past just gone, OR must they be contended against? I would say “they must be contended against.”

We would affirm that Jim, from point “A” (when he accepts Christ in faith) to point “B” (5 years down the line), would have advanced in every one of those above-mentioned areas. He would, by the grace of God, love God more completely, love his neighbor more perfectly, live out the Beatitudes more faithfully, and resist bad habits from the past more resolutely.

Now, assuming no question/doubt about Jim’s salvation as a believer, my questions are these:
(1) Is the move from A to B command by Christ and the Gospel? I would say “yes.”

(2) Is the move from A to B effortless, painless, and without struggle OR does it at times involve pain, agony, and struggle? I would say “it involves pain, agony, and struggle.”

(3) Do the prayers of other believers for Jim help him in his move from A to B? I would say “yes.”

(4) Now, if Jim should instead die right after he comes to believe, how are these above-mentioned imperfections, which constitute a condition of Jim’s soul in relation to God and are at odds with the demands of the Gospel, removed or changed?
That is, since in entering God’s presence, --one will love Him above all things, --our soul will be reoriented away from inclinations to sin from past bad habits, --we will obviously come to know perfectly our poverty of spirit; so will this change in the soul be effortless, painless, and without struggle OR will it involve pain, agony, and struggle? I submit that, as a conscious self, in entering God’s presence I will experience the pain, agony, and struggle of that change.
I don’t think we can say the blood of Christ anesthetically and magically changes believers at death.

RE the Good Thief.
One should take Jesus words at face value. Jesus said: “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” He didn’t say: “At the moment of your death you’re going straight to heaven.” Nor is this interpretation necessitated by the words Jesus used. “Today” and “At the very moment of your death” are not equivalent. And further “Today you will be with me in paradise” is not Jesus saying “At the moment of your death you’re going straight to paradise which means there is no process of purification for anyone in humanity ever. You got that all you RCs.”

For all we know the Good Thief dying on the cross experienced the purification necessary to enter God’s presence immediately after death. I’m not God. I can’t judge that one way or another.

Further, when Jesus says that they will “be” together sometime “today,” in an attempt to rule out purgatory some people regard it as saying they were “going” together–which it never said.

The account of the Good Thief is not a pronouncement on purgatory nor do Jesus words rule out purgatory in general. The account never meant to address the subject of purgatory and it is torturing the text to extort an indictment of doctrine of purgatory by Jesus from it.

I would argue that asking one to judge how long the process of purification will last is like asking them to do God’s job–similar to asking one to design the grace that will save someone. God alone, as Jeremiah (17:9-10) reminds us, knows the human mind and heart. The transformation of the heart and soul of the believer by the grace of God to conform to all the demands of the Gospel takes place in this life, or, where lacking, in the next in the view of RC theology. Who knows what change took place in the good thief’s heart, mind and soul by grace as he hung there dying clinging to Jesus’ promise.

Entering eternity is not like entering the next room. Can one say God’s time is the same as ours?

 

[Domini_cane]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

The good thief, was a saint, St. Dismas.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=114

 

[RoseMary131]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

God decides who goes to Purgatory on their way to Heaven and who goes directly to Heaven. There are probably very few people who go straight to Heaven, who are totally pure and can thus enter Heaven.

Some people have that purification before death… now pure and can enter Heaven… not sinless… but “purified”.

We do not know if the Good Thief went straight from life on Earth to Eternal Life in Heaven.

We know that Jesus told him, " Today you will be with me in paradise."

So what does that tell us?..

Did Jesus purify him at that moment?

Did the Good Thief pass first through Purgatory for purification?

What is a day in God’s time - is it 24 hours for the planet Earth to spin on its axis?

What we know from that passage is: The Good Thief received the death of a criminal - crucifixion. He admitted that he deserved his sentence. He rebuked the criminal who was blaspheming Jesus. He asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus entered his reign.

And Jesus replied, “I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise.”

Taken at straight English word level… Jesus says the Good Thief will be with him in paradise today. At straight English word level… it doesn’t mention anything else - nothing about if there is or is not a Purgatory…nor if you or I may or may not be purged as with fire through Purgatory before entering Heaven if we are so allowed to enter Heaven.

Peace to you.

 

[MaryT777]

I like the comment " You got that all you RC’s" New way of putting things LOL!

Yes I understood your posts and “got that”

 

[Jon_S_1]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

Isn’t one day outside of hell, one day in paradise? The thief went to paradise. Purgatory occurs to us as we enter paradise. There is no time. That day they both died and entered the afterlife. They both went to paradise. In no way does that negate purgatory. Stop thinking so temporally since heaven is anything but.

 

[marymary1975]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

I don’t think you have the correct view of this. People don’t die and go straight to purgatory, that is absolutely wrong. People die and they get Judgment from Jesus. you are missing here the fact that Jesus is our Judge and Jesus is Justice. When you die Jesus is going to judge your life and your actions. Remember only Jesus is the perfect judge and and he knows everything about you and only Jesus is capable of judging the state of your soul, and depending of Jesus’ determination of the state of your soul then you either go to heaven, hell.or.purgatory, again based on Jesus judgment. You don’t get into heaven or.purgatory because of jesus’ bloodshed, you go there because Jesus made a judgment as to the state of your soul.

What you are totally missing from the story of the penant thief, is that the thief received his judgment while on earth in the cross. The thief didn’t have to die to be judged because before dying he had the Judge right next to him. When Jesus said those words was because Jesus made a judgment on the state of the thief’s soul and Jesus in his perfecto ability to judge determined the thief should go to heaven. The rest of humanity doesn’t have Jesus next to us as the thief did. We have to die to receive judgment. There is a reason we are forbidden to pass judgment and the reason is because we lack the capacity to see into someone’s heart therefore our judgment is imperfect. Jesus saw directly into the thief’s.heart and determined his soul was to go to heaven. How do you know that the thief should gone to purgatory.? Did you met the thief? Did you were there to know exactly why he was crucified? How do.you know the thief committed many mortal sins? How do you know that the reason why he was a thief was not because his.children were.hungry and he did it to feed.his children or maybe he was forced to? How do you know he had.the requirements for a mortal sin? In your question you are playing to be judge of the thief when you know nothing about it. You have no idea about the thief’s.soul which makes you uncapable.of passing any judgment on him. However Jesus did know his soul and he passed judgment accurately and accordingly and Jesus’.judgment was that he would go to heaven. This story has nothing to do with purgatory, is about Jesus judging.

 

[bzkoss236]

First, paradise in this context does not refer to heaven. It was their name for the Bosom of Abraham, as depicted in the parable of the Rich man and the leper Lazarus. So he didn’t go straight to heaven, because Jesus didn’t even go straight to heaven after his death. Jesus went to preach to those in paradise (ie. Bosom of Abraham; also called Limbo of the Fathers) so that they may again heaven. It is more likely, given the context of the word and time period, that this is what Jesus meant. Also because Jesus didn’t ascend to heaven until 40 days after his rising from the dead, which gives more credence for the thief not having gone directly to heaven after his death.

Second, there is some controversy as to the use of the comma, as there is ambiguity of the punctuation in the original text. The first use (and seemingly popular use) would be to have the comma before the word today, which makes the statement mean that Jesus said that on that very day, the thief would be with him in paradise. The second use has the comma after the word today, which gives the indication that on that day, Jesus said the thief would be with him in paradise. So in one context today correlates to when the thief would be with Jesus in paradise, and the other indicates when Jesus said it.

Third, purgatory isn’t for forgiving sins. Purgatory is a cleansing of that which is left on our souls that is impure even after forgiveness. There is an indication from scripture that there are both eternal and temporal punishments for our sins. Venial sins only dish out temporal punishments, where as mortal sins dish out both. Receiving God’s forgiveness takes care of the eternal punishment (not because this is a limit to God, but because of our own weakness). Repentance deals with not only being sorrowful for the sin we’ve committed, but the determination to try and not sin again. It is the latter that we often fail at. We also don’t have any real indication that purgatory is a place, it is merely a process of purification so that one is able to enter heaven. And as it states in the Book of Revelation, nothing unclean can enter heaven. Being declared clean is not the same as actually being clean.

And finally, we do not have an indication that the thief even went through purgatory. Since it is likely that he wasn’t baptized in his earthly life, but he professed faith in Christ on the cross before he died, he is likely to have received what we call ‘baptism by desire’. Baptism by desire is still baptism, but in the absence of the ritual we’re all used to. This isn’t to say that the ritual isn’t necessary, because we are bound to obey Christ, and this is how he said we are to do it, but that it isn’t necessary for God’s grace in baptism to be applied, as God is not bound by the Sacraments. Baptism of desire also indicates that if the thief were able to, he would have been baptized, but as it was not physically possible, the obligation to have a ritual baptism was not there. And since baptism is a means by which God forgives sins and allows the recipient to receive sanctifying grace, that the thief may not have had to go through purgatory.

 

[Bballer32]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory? This man probably committed thousands of “mortal sins” and should have had to go to Purgatory, but only because of his belief in Christ was he able to enter heaven “today” and not after a stint in Purgatory. Clearly, humanity is inherently imperfect and can only be made perfect through belief in Christ and his bloodshed. If the penitent thief could enter heaven only by belief, why not us? What does it say about purgatory that it indicates that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to purify our souls?

One thing we need to understand is that before Christ came to the Earth, there was no way to get to heaven because Christ opens the gates of heaven (now there are the exceptions of Moses and Elijah). Those who were found worthy of the kingdom were put into the place we call Abraham’s Bosom and supposedly, according to tradition, the Bosom was located near Hell but not in Hell. Abraham’s Bosom is like the Old Testament version of Purgatory in a sense.

So, when Jesus dies, we believe that he descends into Hell to destroy the bonds of Death and to bring out those who were within the Bosom. But, we need to remember that this lasted more between approximately 3pm on Friday and until the resurrection (according to human time). Therefore, the thief could not possibly have gone to Heaven right as he died. He would have went to the Bosom and taken to Heaven when Christ came to free them.

All in all, this scenario cannot disprove the existence of Purgatory.

 

[rfournier103]

If anyone could 100% absolve the good thief’s sins and allow him to bypass Purgatory, it’s Jesus Christ (the HIGHEST of High Priests). If anyone could hook the good thief up with a pass to heaven, it would be Jesus the Christ.

The good thief’s pennence was paid on his own cross, and definately paid all his mortal sins in full.

christian2112, are you interested in learning about Catholicism, or are you interested in debating us? Inquiring minds want to know…

I think I asked you this in another thread… Can you explain to us the difference between REDEMPTION and SALVATION? I would like to hear YOUR take on it.

 

[snarflemike]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory?

It says absolutely nothing about Purgatory. The thief was a sinner on earth, a sinner on the cross (if he had been taken down from the cross, do you think he would have lived another 40 years without any sin?), and was not a sinner when he entered heaven. The difference between “was a sinner” and “was not a sinner” is the process that we call Purgatory. And you believe in it as a non-Catholic Christian too. It is God’s last mercy to those who are saved, that he completes their transformation from sinner to not-a-sinner. It may happen in the blink of an eye, we don’t know, but it is Purgatory, the process of final sanctification and perfection.

I’m always astounded that non-Catholic Christians want to object to this concept, when deep down they believe it.

 

[bzkoss236]

If anyone could 100% absolve the good thief’s sins and allow him to bypass Purgatory, it’s Jesus Christ (the HIGHEST of High Priests). If anyone could hook the good thief up with a pass to heaven, it would be Jesus the Christ.

The good thief’s pennence was paid on his own cross, and definately paid all his mortal sins in full.

christian2112, are you interested in learning about Catholicism, or are you interested in debating us? Inquiring minds want to know…

I think I asked you this in another thread… Can you explain to us the difference between REDEMPTION and SALVATION? I would like to hear YOUR take on it.

I guess you could say that the thief’s death on his cross was his purgatory.

 

[RoseMary131]

christian2112, are you interested in learning about Catholicism, or are you interested in debating us? Inquiring minds want to know…

I answered Christian’s thoughts assuming an interest in learning about Catholicism.

Christian, are you interested in learning about the Faith of the Church?

Peace.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It says absolutely nothing about Purgatory. The thief was a sinner on earth, a sinner on the cross (if he had been taken down from the cross, do you think he would have lived another 40 years without any sin?), and was not a sinner when he entered heaven. The difference between “was a sinner” and “was not a sinner” is the process that we call Purgatory. And you believe in it as a non-Catholic Christian too. It is God’s last mercy to those who are saved, that he completes their transformation from sinner to not-a-sinner. It may happen in the blink of an eye, we don’t know, but it is Purgatory, the process of final sanctification and perfection.

I’m always astounded that non-Catholic Christians want to object to this concept, when deep down they believe it.

Yes, they absolutely believe in it. They sometimes call it sanctification and sometimes Gods grace at death, both of which are true. It comes down to them misunderstanding purgatory as a place of second chances or a place like hell. I don’t know any Protestants who would reject this statement from then Cardinal Ratzinger (as long as you withheld that the pope said it )

"The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of ‘short’ or ‘long’ duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The ‘temporal measure’ of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an ‘existential time,’ in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world.
. . .
"[Purgatory] is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.
. . .
“Encounter with the Lord is this transformation.”…

–Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, p. 230-231

 

[marymary1975]

I guess you could say that the thief’s death on his cross was his purgatory.

This is also another very good observation

 

[christian2112]

I think the fundamental difference here between non-RC Christians and RC Christians is that Catholics believe that we need to be purified by literally perfecting our sins in a purgatory, while non-Catholics believe that we become pure by believing in Christ and therefore having our sins atoned for. I think that humanity is an imperfect creation of Christ and can only be made perfect and pure enough for heaven by the intervention of the perfect Christ. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “Whoever believes in the Son will have eternal life” (John 3:36). As Christians, we should act as closely in the manner of Christ as possible, but because “all sin and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), our belief in Christ purifies us and makes purgatory unnecessary. It is a faith vs. faith and works idea, admittedly. If we are judged by our works, by the number of our mortal and venial sins, then we all fail. But because we traded in the law of Moses for the salvation of Christ, we are saved from our wrongdoing and by Jesus, not by ourselves. Therefore, purgatory is based on an anachronistic concept of works of the law. This will be met with scorn, but I’m sure that it didn’t hurt that it sold a few indulgences back in the day. Say, for a minute, that purgatory is an invention. Then, they will be indicted under “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll” (Rev. 22:18). They will have substituted Christ’s atonement of sin for an atonement by an invented purgatory. As to the inquiries about my intentions, I moved this post to the apologetics section on the suggestion of a few people in the non-Catholic religions section, so I assumed that it would not take as much scorn in a section devoted to arguing the Catholic religion. I’m most likely going to become an Orthodox Christian because I don’t mind scripture and church tradition as long as the church does not add things to scripture, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception. In response to these points, I don’t blame Luther for his sola scriptura position, and I admittedly somewhat sympathize with it. But because the Orthodox Church does not misuse church tradition, I don’t have to hold completely to sola scriptura.

 

[R_C]

If Jesus, upon hearing the belief of the penitent thief, told him “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), what does this say of Purgatory?

It says nothing. We cannot pick one sentence from the Bible and dismiss something that has been part of the faith since the days of the apostles and certainly at over 15 centuries before Protestantism came into existence.

I exhort you to check out the following:

Purgatory in Sacred Scripture

Purgatory in Sacred Tradition

 

[TK421]

If you do a search on this forum, there’s a tract dedicated specifically to this subject. It should (hopefully) abundantly satisfy any questions you have about how purgatory is easily compatible with the penitent thief. I didn’t find any holes in the explanations and I’m pretty ruthless.

 

[bzkoss236]

I think the fundamental difference here between non-RC Christians and RC Christians is that Catholics believe that we need to be purified by literally perfecting our sins in a purgatory, while non-Catholics believe that we become pure by believing in Christ and therefore having our sins atoned for. I think that humanity is an imperfect creation of Christ and can only be made perfect and pure enough for heaven by the intervention of the perfect Christ. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “Whoever believes in the Son will have eternal life” (John 3:36). As Christians, we should act as closely in the manner of Christ as possible, but because “all sin and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), our belief in Christ purifies us and makes purgatory unnecessary. It is a faith vs. faith and works idea, admittedly. If we are judged by our works, by the number of our mortal and venial sins, then we all fail. But because we traded in the law of Moses for the salvation of Christ, we are saved from our wrongdoing and by Jesus, not by ourselves. Therefore, purgatory is based on an anachronistic concept of works of the law. This will be met with scorn, but I’m sure that it didn’t hurt that it sold a few indulgences back in the day. Say, for a minute, that purgatory is an invention. Then, they will be indicted under “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll” (Rev. 22:18). They will have substituted Christ’s atonement of sin for an atonement by an invented purgatory. As to the inquiries about my intentions, I moved this post to the apologetics section on the suggestion of a few people in the non-Catholic religions section, so I assumed that it would not take as much scorn in a section devoted to arguing the Catholic religion. I’m most likely going to become an Orthodox Christian because I don’t mind scripture and church tradition as long as the church does not add things to scripture, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception. In response to these points, I don’t blame Luther for his sola scriptura position, and I admittedly somewhat sympathize with it. But because the Orthodox Church does not misuse church tradition, I don’t have to hold completely to sola scriptura.

Purgatory wasn’t an invention of the Catholic Church. It has been around even before Christ. In 2 Maccabees, it shows that Jews would pray for the dead in hopes that they would be purified and be able to then enter heaven.

About Purgatory
Purgatory and the Early Church Fathers

 

[R_C]

the fundamental difference here between non-RC Christians and RC Christians is that Catholics believe that we need to be purified by literally perfecting our sins in a purgatory, while non-Catholics believe that we become pure by believing in Christ and therefore having our sins atoned for.

Not quite, but you are close. We discussed on the difference in our beliefs of justification on several previous threads (see 1,2).

The fundamental difference is more subtle.

For the Catholic Church, a real mental act of faith, consisting of a firm belief in all revealed truths makes up the faith of justification and the “beginning, foundation, and source” of justification. Considered as an act, justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God’s preventing and helping grace. Considered as a state or habit, it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, termed sanctifying grace.

What did Luther understand by fiduciary faith? Not the first or fundamental deposition or preparation for the (active) justification, but the spiritual grasp with which we seize the external justice of Christ and with it, as with a mantle of grace, cover our sins (which still continue to exist interiorly) in the infallible, certain belief that God, for the sake of Christ, will no longer hold our sin against us.

According to Luther, the faith that justifies is not a firm belief in God’s revealed truths and promises, but the infallible conviction that God for the sake of Christ will no longer impute to us our sins, but will consider and treat us, as if we were really just and holy, although in our inner selves we remain the same sinners as before. We read in the Solid Declaration:

Through the obedience of Christ by faith the just are so declared and reputed, although by reason of their corrupt nature they still are and remain, sinners as long as they bear this mortal body.

Luther applauded good works, but only as necessary concomitants, not as efficient dispositions, for justification. Finding himself in contradiction with Scripture, he rejected the Epistle of St. James as “of straw” and into the text of St. Paul to the Romans (3:28) he inserted the word “alone”. Yet, nowhere does Paul teach that faith alone (without charity) brings justification.

If Luther’s interpretation could stand, then St. Paul would come into direct contradiction not only with St. James but also with himself; for, except St. John, the favourite Apostle, he is the most outspoken of all in proclaiming the necessity and excellence of charity over faith in the matter of justification (1 Cor 13:1). In conformity with this interpretation is the tenor of the Scriptural doctrine, namely, that over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification, such as fear (Ecclus., i, 28), and hope (Romans 8:24), charity (Lk 7:47), penance with contrition (Lk 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19), almsgiving (Daniel 4:24; Tob., xii, 9).

Martin Luther and Calvin taught that a sinner is justified by fiduciary faith, in such a way, however, that sin is not removed or wiped out, but merely covered up. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, in active justification an *actual and real forgiveness of sins takes place so that the sin is really removed *from the soul, not only original sin by baptism but also mortal sin by the sacrament of penance. This view is consonant with Holy Scripture, for the expressions: “blotting out” as applied to sin, “exhausting” , “taking away”, cannot be reconciled with a mere covering up of sin which is supposed to continue its existence in a covert manner. Other irreconcilable Biblical expressions are, for instance, the expression of “cleansing” and “washing away” the mire of sin, that of coming “from death to life”, the removal from darkness to light.

In the Protestant system, remission of sin is no real forgiveness, no blotting out of guilt. The person to be justified seizes by means of the fiduciary faith the exterior justice of Christ and covers his sins; this exterior justice is imputed to him as if it were his own, and he stands before God as having an outward justification, but in his inner self he remains the same sinner. Sin is merely cloaked and concealed by the imputed merits of Christ; God no longer imputes it, whilst in reality it continues under cover its existence till death. There exist in man side by side two hostile brothers as it were — one just, the other unjust; one a saint, the other a sinner. In a man who is at once sinful and just, half holy and half unholy, we cannot recognize a masterpiece of God’s omnipotence, but a wretched caricature, the deformity of which is exaggerated all the more by the violent introduction of the justice of Christ.

The Catholic teaching is that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God. Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and sanctified by his own personal justice (causa formalis).

It was the ancient heresy of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times that welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification. St. Augustine was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines from the writings of St. Paul.