![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/05\/Paul17.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The following comes from some e-mail in my files from Dr. Kenneth Howell<\/a> (July 1996). He was a Presbyterian minister from 1978 to 1996, and converted to the Catholic Church in June 1996. Dr. Howell holds a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Seminary, and Ph.D\u2019s in General Linguistics (Indiana) and History (Lancaster Univ., U.K.). He was Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi for seven years. Dr. Howell is currently a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, and Director of the John Henry Cardinal Newman Institute of Catholic Thought, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Illinois.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Trent does not exclude the notion of imputation. It only denies that justification consists solely in imputation. The relevant canons are numbers 9,10,11. Canon 9 does not even deny sola fide<\/em>\u00a0completely but only a very minimal interpretation of that notion. I translate literally:<\/p>\n \u201cIf anyone says that the impious are justified by faith alone so that he understands [by this] that nothing else is required in which [quo] he cooperates in working out the grace of justification and that it is not necessary at all that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema.\u201d<\/p>\n Canon 9 then only anathematizes such a reduced form of faith that no outworking of that faith is necessary. This canon in no way says that imputation is not true but only that it is heretical to hold that justification consists solely in imputation.<\/p>\n I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ\u2019s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ\u2019s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ\u2019s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. Here\u2019s the words:<\/p>\n \u201cIf anyone says that men are justified without Christ\u2019s righteousness which he merited for us or that they are formally justified by it itself [i.e. righteousness] [\u2018per eam ipsam<\/em>\u2018], let him be anathema.\u201d<\/p>\n Canon 10 says that Christ\u2019s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient.<\/p>\n With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this.<\/p>\n How could I become a Catholic if I still thought imputation was acceptable? Because I came to see that the rigid distinction between justification and sanctification so prominent in Reformation theologies was an artificial distinction that Scripture did not support. When one takes into account the whole of Scripture, especially James\u2019 and Jesus\u2019 teaching on the necessity of perfection for salvation (e.g. Matt 5;8), I realized that man cannot be \u201csimul justus et peccator<\/em>.\u201d Transformational righteousness is absolutely essential for final salvation. Once one realizes this, the entire Catholic system of sacraments, purgatory etc. fits into a coherent pattern.<\/p>\n But does this mean that \u201cimputation \u2026 is totally foreign to Catholic thought?\u201d I am not sure it does. I find it even harder to believe that Christ\u2019s righteousness declaring us forgiven is \u201ctotally\u00a0antithetical to transformational righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n Perhaps it is very important to clarify definitions at this point . . . One is the Reformed\/Lutheran idea of an account with God that has no direct bearing on our real state in life. Let\u2019s call this the strong imputation thesis. I have no doubt that this was rejected by Trent. But a softer form \u2014 call it the weak imputation thesis \u2014 is that imputation is a declaration of forgiveness of the kind implied in Jesus\u2019s words to the thief on the cross, \u201cToday you will be with me in paradise.\u201d Other examples are our Lord\u2019s words to Zaccheus, \u201cToday, salvation has arrived at this house because he himself is a son of Abraham.\u201d Or to the woman caught in adultery, \u201cNeither do I condemn you.\u201d This declaration is what we receive when, having confessed our sins sincerely to our priests, we may be confident of the forgiveness of Christ. The words of the human priest are Christ\u2019s words of forgiveness. We have been declared forgiven.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n There can be no doubt that Trent stressed transformational righteousness as that which Christ infuses into our souls. The frequent references to baptism clearly speak of a real justice that results from Christ\u2019s meritorious work. Furthermore, it\u2019s evident that the idea of being thought of as righteous by God, without really being so, is unacceptable. This is particuarly emphasized in chapter 7 when speaking about the formal cause of justification. As with Aristotle\u2019s use of this category \u201cformal cause\u201d, Trent meant that which shapes us (i.e. gives us form) into righteous people, not simply being thought of as righteous (\u201cnon modo reputamur sed vere justi nominamur et sumus<\/em>\u201c). To put the matter in another manner, God thinks of us as righteous only when we are in fact righteous. There is no legal fiction.<\/p>\n Having said that, it seems to me that there is also a place in Trent for a declaration which not only recognizes but also confers that righteousness of Christ which is the ground of our justification. In chapter 14 \u201cOn Lapses and their Restoration\u201d Trent insists on the necessity of sacramental confession as the means of restoration and it explicitly says that sacramental absolution is the only means of remitting eternal punishment and guilt. The Latin here is somewhat convoluted and the standard English translation (Deferrari) is so literal that it is difficult to follow. So, I\u2019ll retranslate the relevant section in a less literal but hopefully more comprehensible form:<\/p>\n A man\u2019s repentance after falling \u2026 contains not only a cessation from sins by hating them (or a contrite and humble heart). It also requires a sacramental confession of those same sins, made at least in desire and at a proper time. This involves sacramental absolution as well as satisfaction by means of fasting, almsgiving, prayers and other pious exercises of the spiritual life. These pious acts do not pay for eternal punishment because that along with guilt can only be remitted by the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament. They pay for temporal punishment which is not always fully remitted (as is the case in baptism) for those who have grieved the Holy Spirit by their ingratitude for the grace of God they once received.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here the Council Fathers go out of their way to stress that our standing before God in this life without guilt and eternal punishment comes from the declaration and conferring of forgiveness found in sacramental absolution. I am reminded of something I heard about Mother Teresa. She supposedly said when we come out of confession, we are without sin just for a little while. Belief in the objective nature of the sacraments requires us to say that the priest\u2019s declaration confers what it signifies. And what does it signify? That Christ our High Priest is granting us pardon on the basis of his own merits.<\/p>\n How does this bear on imputation? The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God\u2019s part because of Christ\u2019s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us.<\/p>\n There is another reason why I think imputation is not totally excluded but is acceptable in a modified form. Canon 9 rejects sola fide<\/em> but, as we know, Trent does not reject faith as essential to justification. It only rejects the reductionism implied in the sola<\/em>. So also, canon 11 rejects \u201csola imputatione justitiae Christi and sola peccatorum remissione<\/em>.\u201d Surely Trent includes remission of sins in justification. Why would we not say then that it also includes imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness? If faith (canon 9) and remission of sins (canon 11) are essential to justification, then should we not also say that imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness is also necessary? Indeed, it seems to me that this is precisely what is being emphasized in requirement for sacramental absolution in chapter 14.<\/p>\n What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola<\/em>\u00a0part. Faith is essential but not sola fide<\/em>. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione<\/em>. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione<\/em>. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola<\/em>) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith.<\/p>\n There is no doubt that the Protestant theory of legal fiction is just that, a fiction. That must be rejected. But the declarative side of justification does not need to be thrown out completely.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[1996]<\/p>\n Romans 2-4 & \u201cWorks of the Law\u201d: Patristic Interpretation<\/a>\u00a0[2-16-01]<\/p>\n Justification in James: Dialogue<\/a>\u00a0[5-8-02]<\/p>\n Council of Trent: Canons on Justification<\/a>\u00a0(with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology)\u00a0<\/strong><\/a>[12-29-03]<\/p>\n Initial Justification & \u201cFaith Alone\u201d: Harmonious?<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-04]<\/p>\n Faith & Works: Oil & Water or Two Sides of a Coin?<\/a>\u00a0[2004]<\/p>\n Catholics\u2019 Underemphasis on Justification by Faith<\/a>\u00a0[3-30-06]<\/p>\n Dialogue w Three Lutherans on Justification & Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[2-1-07]<\/p>\n Catholic Bible Verses\u00a0on Sanctification and Merit<\/a>\u00a0[12-20-07]<\/p>\n Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works)<\/a>\u00a0[4-8-08]<\/p>\n Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith<\/a>\u00a0[4-16-08]<\/p>\n St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages)<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-08]<\/p>\n John Calvin: Good Works Manifest True Saving Faith<\/a>\u00a0[9-4-08]<\/p>\n Grace, Faith, Works,\u00a0& Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition<\/a>\u00a0[12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]<\/p>\n Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation<\/a>\u00a0(Always Enabled by God\u2019s Grace)<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>[1-3-10]<\/p>\n Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-10]<\/p>\n Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification)<\/a>\u00a0[1-21-10]<\/p>\n Martin Luther: Faith Alone is\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Lawless Antinomianism<\/a>\u00a0[2-28-10]<\/p>\n Biblical \u201cPower\u201d: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification<\/a>\u00a0[3-14-11]<\/p>\n Justification:\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0by Faith Alone, & Ongoing<\/a>\u00a0(Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham\u2019s Multiple Justifications)<\/a>\u00a0[10-15-11]<\/p>\n St. Paul\u2019s Use of the Term \u201cGift\u201d & Infused Justification<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n Salvation: By Grace Alone,\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Faith Alone or Works<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions<\/a>\u00a0[7-2-13]<\/p>\n \u201cCatholic Justification\u201d in James & Romans<\/a>\u00a0[11-18-15]<\/p>\n Philippians 2:12 & \u201cWork[ing] Out\u201d One\u2019s Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[1-26-16]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>AJ Alfieri-Crispin<\/a>\u00a0(10-28-06),\u00a0Saint Paul Preaching<\/em>, Pauline shrine in Veria, Greece<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The following comes from some e-mail in my files from Dr. Kenneth Howell (July 1996). He was a Presbyterian minister from 1978 to 1996, and converted to the Catholic Church in June 1996. Dr. Howell holds a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Seminary, and Ph.D\u2019s in General Linguistics (Indiana) and History (Lancaster Univ., U.K.). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":47177,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[1121,2342,1658,7588,1123,1120,2344,10889,1657,4632,8263,2341,1118,2343,243,10886,10883],"class_list":["post-47174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-salvation-justification","tag-extrinsic-justification","tag-faith-alone","tag-imparted-justification","tag-imputation","tag-imputed-justification","tag-infused-justification","tag-justification","tag-kenneth-howell","tag-one-time-justification","tag-paul-justification","tag-paul-salvation","tag-salvation","tag-sanctification","tag-sola-fide","tag-soteriology-2","tag-trent-imputed-justification","tag-trent-justification"],"yoast_head":"\n