Monday, May 26, 2025

RC Theologian Martin Jugie (1878-1954) on Baptism Being a Means of Avoiding Purgatory in Roman Catholic Theology

  

Baptism

 

Among the means of avoiding Purgatory, pride of place must be given to those which, directly or indirectly, draw their efficacy from the Sacraments instituted by Christ.

 

The first of the Sacraments, Baptism, effaces all sin and all punishment due to sin. Thus, baptized infants who die before attaining the use of reason, and adult neophytes who die so soon after Baptism that they have not committed the least sin, will not know Purgatory but will pass straight to Heaven.

 

Knowing this sovereign power of Baptism and affrighted by the awful penances imposed by the early Church for sins committed after its reception, many catechumens of the first centuries put off their Baptism as long as possible. They waited almost till the moment of death. Against such a gross exploitation of the divine mercy, the Fathers of the Church often protested in their homilies. There is a remarkable similarity between the discourses which they directed against such laggards and those which we hear today directed against the faithful who attempt to defer their confession or their reception of Extreme Unction till the last minute. In both, the reasoning put forward is almost the same.

 

Today, in the mission countries, where catechumens abound, Baptism can send directly to Heaven a certain number of privileged souls. Surprised by mortal sickness before having finished their instruction, they receive the Sacrament in extremis with the right dispositions and their souls appear before the Sovereign Judge in all the purity of baptismal innocence. For them, there is no Purgatory.

 

Those who have kept themselves from all mortal sin after their Baptism, and come to the end of their lives with the simple faults and the sins of human frailty, may very well escape Purgatory, because the punishment incurred by the faults in light and can easily be set aside by the reception of the Sacraments, the gaining of indulgences, and by acts of the love of God. (Martin Jugie, The Truth About Purgatory and The Means to Avoid it [Westminster, Ma.: Newman Press, 1949; repr., Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2022], 149-50)

 

 

Roman Catholic Theologian Martin Jugie (1878-1954) on Indulgences

  

Indulgences

 

We have in indulgences, so liberally granted to us by the Church, a means at once easy and efficacious to wipe out the debt of our sins. This means is attached directly, by its origin, to sacramental penitence, which requires of the penitent contrition, confession, and satisfaction.

 

Satisfaction is represented by the penance imposed by the confessor. Its purpose is to satisfy divine justice for the sins committed after Baptism. In the early centuries of the Church, long and hard penances were imposed on those who confessed grave sins, and only after the performance of these penances did the penitent receive full absolution, that is to say, not only the absolution of sin itself, which can be had immediately by Confession, but also the total absolution of the temporal punishment due to sin. IN other words, to that final reconciliation the Church attached what we call today a plenary indulgence. The Church has received from Christ the full an entire power to absolve the faithful, not only from the sins themselves, but also from the punishment due to sin. “Whatsover you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven,” said Christ to St. Peter. The same words were spoken, on another occasion, to all the apostles together (Matt. 18:18). The temporal punishment due to sin is a binding chain, which prevents our entry into Heaven unless and until we have been delivered from it. It is in our hands, then, to have ourselves delivered from these chains by those who, in the Church, have receive the power to do so. But it is understood that the deliverance must respect the requirements of equity. Divine justice demands a compensation commensurate with the sin. Formerly, the Church demanded far more from the penitent than she demands today. It is true that our confessors impose very light penances on us, even for mortal sins, if one compares them to those which were in use in the early Church. What is a chaplet or an entire Rosary, or a Way of the Cross, or a day’s fast, or a small alms, next to whole years of series, of fasts on bread and water, or long pilgrimages on foot? However, divine justice remains ever the same: its tariff has not changed. One must pay the price. What does the Church do in order to aid us? Knowing our weakness, and the frayed health of these latter times, she dips her hands deep into her treasury—the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ and His saints, of which she is the dispensatrix. We call this divine coinage by the name “indulgences.” An indulgence is a random from the temporal punishment which we owe to divine justice for our sins, even after we have repented of them and obtained absolution. It does not concern the remission of sin, but the remission of the pain due to sin already pardoned. This must not be forgotten.

 

How can we acquire this precious currency? We have only to observe the conditions which the Church very wisely imposes, whether there is question of plenary or partial indulgence. These conditions are not draconian, for they contain nothing that is beyond the power of goodwill, and they are easy to fulfill. For a plenary indulgence, which remits all debts and makes the soul immaculate for Heaven, there is required a full repentance for all sin, both mortal and venial, without wilfull attachment to the least of them. The soul must renounce all that displeases God and unite itself with all its powers to His Will. In a word, it must love God, according to the first and the greatest commandment. It is so difficult to love in this way an all-good and all-lovable Father, especially when we are aided to this perfection by Confession and Communion, which are ordinarily (not always) required for the gaining of a plenary indulgence? Add to this, usually, a visit to a church with prayers for the Pope’s intentions, and you are delivered from the heavy weight of your sins, in their pains as well as their culpability. If we were to make this exercise every day, or at least once a week, we would stand a very good chance of escaping Purgatory.

 

Perhaps you find that, now, it is all so easy that you are inclined to be skeptical about it. But ask yourself the question: what have I done more difficult than this, to obtain a remission incomparably greater than that of the temporal punishment, the remission of the mortal sin itself and of the eternal pain it entailed? You went and knelt at the feet of a priest who represented Christ, and you said: “Father, I have sinned”; and he raised his hand over you, forgiving you in the Name of Jesus Christ. What more simple in its means, what more marvelous in its effects? Do you forget that the love of God for us knows no bounds; that He has given to us His Only Son, and has allowed Him to offer Himself as a victim for our sins, that the rights of justice might be fully satisfied? What God asks of us in faith in His love and a return of love. If we give that return of love, He will forget all. “For charity covereth a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). (Martin Jugie, The Truth About Purgatory and The Means to Avoid it [Westminster, Ma.: Newman Press, 1949; repr., Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2022], 154-57, emphasis in original)

 

Paul J. Achtemeier on Love/Charity Covering Sins (1 Peter 4:8)

  

The most puzzling part of the verse consists in the final four words (ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν). While the notion that love covers sin is common in the Bible and early Christian literature, the closeness of this formulation to the Hebrew of Prov 10:12b and its almost identical form in Jas 5:20 point to the proverbial status of this phrase, a status probably antedating both uses in the NT.

 

What is not clear is whose sins are covered. There are four possibilities: (1) the sins of the one who loves the other are covered by that love; (2) the sins of the one loved are covered by the one who loves; (3) the sins of both the one loving and the loved are covered; (4) the sins of the one loved, which causes that person to repent, are thereby covered. While some have argued for (3) and some for (4), the first two possibilities have claimed the widest support.

1. The proverb can be taken to mean that one who loves contributes to the divine forgiveness of his or her own sins. Some of those who find this interpretation persuasive see a similar meaning in Luke 7:47 or find here an extrapolation of Matt 6:14–15. It is also the meaning assumed in 2 Clem. 16.4, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. Such an interpretation finds in a person’s love for others a kind of “secondary atonement,” an interpretation rendered questionable by the assertion of our author that sins against God have been taken away by Christ (1:18–19; 2:24, 3:18).

 

2. The proverb can be understood to mean that the one who loves another overlooks by that act that other person’s offenses, whether against the one loving or against others in the community, and thus “covers” them. Additional support for this interpretation is found in the fact that that is also the point of Prov 10:12, and reflects the thrust of Matt 18:21–22 and 1 Cor 13:4–7. It is also the interpretation of the proverb in 1 Clem. 49.5. The context within which this proverb appears, with its strong emphasis on mutuality both in the first part of this verse (εἰς ἑαυτοῦς), as well as in vv. 9 (εἰς ἀλλήλους) and 10 (εἰς ἑαυτοῦς), argues persuasively for this second interpretation. In order to maintain a strong Christian community in the face of the pressures that the author will discuss in the passages following these verses, there must be mutual love and forgiveness within the community itself. Only in that way will they continue to exist as the kind of community whose life can bring glory to God and to Jesus Christ (v. 11b) (Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 295-96)

 

Gary A. Anderson on Traditions Teaching Satan Sexually Seduced Eve

  

According to another apocryphal text, the Life of Adam and Eve, Adam was busy in a different part of the Garden from where Eve was, and when it came time for prayer, even the angels who normally attended Eve left Eden to go worship God in the heavens. In this brief moment, while Eve was unattended, the snake saw the occasion for his approach and temptation. According to this text, Eve ate the fruit on her own and later gave it to Adam. But the Life of Adam and Eve does not seem to know a tradition that the snake had deceived and defiled Eve.

 

Where could this idea have originated? No doubt the prime suspect for this understanding was Eve's own attempt to exonerate herself. According to Genesis, Eve explained to God that "the serpent deceived me and I ate." This verse had a large impact on early Christian thought about original sin because of what happened to the word "deceive" when it made that short but treacherous journey from its original home in the Hebrew text to its exile within the Greek and Latin Bibles.

 

In Hebrew, the word for "deception" is somewhat rare but hardly ambiguous. It refers to an act of representing something as what it is not. When it was translated into Greek, however, the sense of deception remained but far more dangerous semantic cargo was taken on board. The Greek and Latin Bibles allow us to construe the verse as an act of sexual seduction. This fateful accident of overlapping semantic fields allowed for the creation of a far more pernicious picture of the deed Eve had wrought. Not only did she consume the forbidden fruit, but she was seduced by the evil serpent and engendered the demonic figure of Cain.

 

One could argue that the theme of Eve's demonic conception of Cain is an older Jewish tradition that was picked up by Christian writers who were looking for a suitable antitype to Mary's virginal conception of the Son of God. Indeed a tradition like this can be found in two Jewish sources: the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible, and Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. But both of these sources are very late, having been written nearly five hundred years after the Protevangelium. It is altogether possible that this tradition of a demonic conception by Eve came into Jewish materials from a Christian source. (Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], 91-92)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Excerpts from Per Bilde, "Contra Apionem 1.28-56: An Essay on Josephus' View of His Own Work in the Context of the Jewish Canon" (1996)

  

. . . [Josephus] appears to have regarded himself as a prophet and, in this role, to have compared himself not only with Jeremiah but with Daniel as well. Josephus claimed to have foreseen the Jewish- Roman war and the Jewish defeat in general and the fall of Jotapata in particular (Bell. 3.351, 406). Exactly like Daniel, Josephus claims to have had nightly visions about the future in which he foresaw the Jewish defeat as well as the destiny of the foreign ruler (Bell. 3.351). (Per Bilde, "Contra Apionem 1.28-56: An Essay on Josephus' View of His Own Work in the Context of the Jewish Canon," in Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison [Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 34; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], 95-96)

 

 

Apparently, Josephus did not share the view, so popular in earlier scholarship, that the Jewish prophetic spirit had died out and had disappeared at some time between the Babylonian exile and the Hasmonean period. This emerges not only from his presentation of himself as a prophet but also from the several instances where he describes other recent or contemporary figures as belonging to the prophetic category. (Ibid., 96)

 

 

14 Josephus refers to John Hyrkanos as having the gift of prophecy (Bell. 1.68-69) (= Ant. 13.399-300 (cf. 13.322-323)), cf. Gray 1993, 16-23; to the Essene "prophets" Judas (Bell. 1.78-80 (= Ant. 13.311-313)), Simon (Bell. 2.213), and Menahem (Ant. 15.373-379), cf. Gray 1993, 80-111; to the strange figure Jesus Son of Ananias (Bell. 6.300-309), cf. Gray 1993, 29-30, 158-163; to Pharisaic prophecy (Ant. 14.172- 176; 15.3-4, 370; 17.41-45), cf. Gray 1993, 148-158; finally, to a number of "sign" or "false" prophets (Bell. 2.261-263; 6.285; Ant. 20.169-172; 20.97, 169), cf. Gray 1993, 112-144. The stories about the Essene "prophets" correspond with Josephus' general remark on the group in Bell. 2.159: "There are some among them who profess to foretell (προγινώσκειν) the future, being versed from their early years in holy books, various forms of purification and apothegms of prophets (προφητων); and seldom, if ever, do they err in their predictions (προαγορεύσεσιν)" (translation from the Loeb-edition). It has been noticed by, e.g., Reiling 1971, 156; Blenkinsopp 1974, 240; Feldman 1990 on p. 405 Feldman specifically notes the exception of Cleodemus-Melchior & John Hyrcanus, that Josephus seems to use the very term "prophet" (προφήτης) only on the biblical prophets while, in the cases of John Hyrcanus, the Essenes, the Pharisees, the "false" prophets and himself, he uses a number of other expressions, e.g., μάντις, άγγελος, διάκονος. However, this is not accurate, cf., e.g., Bell. 1.68-69; 4.386; 6.286; Ant. 1.240; 8.339; 13.299; CA 1.312, as noticed by, e.g., Aune 1982; Greenspahn 1989, 41; Leiman 1989, 55-56; Gray 1993, 9-34. Gray 1993, 26-34, 165, emphasizes correctly that Josephus' notion of "prophecy" is much broader than that of mainstream modern scholarship, cf. similarly Feldman 1990, 394. (Ibid.,  96 n. 14)

 

 

Livestream with Errol Amey on Christology

 

Livestream with Errol Amey on Christology







Sunday, May 25, 2025

Gary A. Anderson, "Of Whom is Satan Jealous?"

  

Of Whom is Satan Jealous?

 

 

If Jewish sources were loath to shower praise on Adam in Eden for fear that he would overshadow Israel at Sinai, then we would expect to find the same view in Christian sources regarding the relation of Adam to Christ. Christ is the eschatos or "last" Adam according to the idiom of Paul (1 Corinthians 15), but the term "last" in Greek means not only the end of a sequential order but the fullest and most robust expression of a given category. The last Adam is the most complete Adam.

 

According to the well-known hymn that Paul cites in his Epistle to the Philippians, Christ must empty himself (kenosis) of his divine glory and take on the form of a lowly servant before God can exult him and grace him with a name higher than any name. When the Father has so elevated the Son, only then shall "every knee bow in heaven and on earth." If Adam has already been accorded the universal acclaim of those in heaven, then what honor is left for the second Adam?

 

Not surprisingly, certain Christian writers attacked the story of Satan's fall as we have it in the Life of Adam and Eve. Ironically, after the rise of Islam the whole tradition could be denigrated as a Muslim invention. This was because Muhammad had included this tradition in the Koran. But despite this polemical reaction, the reservation of Christian thinkers about this tradition was not any different from that of the Rabbis. The elevation of the first Adam could not be allowed to overshadow the second. For this reason Christian writers preferred to speak of the incarnate Son as he who was elevated over the angels. This argument is made at greatest length in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For this writer, Christ is

 

the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being .... When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excel- lent than theirs. (Heb. 1:3-4)

 

But as the Jewish tradition simply stated Moses' superiority to the angels as a mere fact-it dramatized the matter through a story about who deserved the Torah-so the declaration of Christ's superiority also required some concrete, narrative display. The angels must bow before him.

 

The proof text for this is the very same one used by the Rabbis: Psalm 8:4-6. The author of the epistle begins by citing the verses of the psalm in question:

 

What is man that you are mindful of him .... You made him for a little while just lower than the angels, but then you crowned him with glory and honor, subjecting all things under his feet. (Psalm 8, as quoted in Heb. 2:6b-8)

 

The writer then interprets the psalm against the pattern of the incarnation:

 

Now in subjecting all things to him, God left nothing outside his control. As it is we do not yet see all things in subjection to him, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the sufferings and death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Heb. 2:8b-9, italics added)

 

This remarkable interpretation of the psalm has put a decidedly Christological spin on the nature of man's royal glory and honor. This power is dependent on a prior act of humiliation. As Milton's heroic angel Abdiel knew, embracing the ignominies of suffering and death would be rewarded by God with the highest of honors.

 

In addition, what is striking about this New Testament writer is the freedom to shift the generic referent of this psalm from the figure of mankind more generally ("what is man") to Son of Man alone. The psalmist certainly intended his poem to sing the praises of man more generally. This is clear at the end of the psalm when those elements of creation that will fall under man's feet are itemized. They include the sheep, oxen, birds and fish, exactly those parts of creation that mankind has jurisdiction over. But the Rabbis and the author of Hebrews extended this paean of praise to include the subjection of the angelic host as well, so that truly "all things were put under his feet."

 

When the angels are included, the Rabbis and the author of Hebrews understand the figure of man as either the elected nation of Israel or the elected Son, God's Christ. But man as a generic figure is not left out of the equation all together. In Judaism and Christianity the status of the universal (all humanity) is always dependent on the particular (Israel or Christ). All humanity will be elevated through the favor shown Israel or Christ. This is the mystery of election: all nations shall find blessing through the promise given Abraham. (Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], 35-37)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Blog Archive