Development of Doctrine, Indulgences and the Order of Divine Charity

I. Newman, Preservation of Type, and the tradition controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees.

When the Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman spoke of the development of doctrine he distinguished several notes by which one can discern genuine development from its antithesis. False development of doctrine is correctly termed corruption.

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love.

It is perhaps accurate to call our Lord’s condemnation of some Pharisaical practices a marking out and condemning of doctrinal corruptions. Indeed, the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus can be read on both sides as each side claiming true development for itself and corruption on the other side.

The Gospel of Matthew records (ch. 15):

1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,

2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.”

Their challenge to Jesus charges Him with breaking the tradition of the elders. They mean to imply that by omitting the washing of hands prior to meals he denies the law of Moses.

Jesus responds directly to them with a counter-challenge:

3 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

4For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’

5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,”

6 need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Jesus charges them with a corruption of the law of Moses in return.

The Ven. Cardinal Newman lists the first note of authenticity as Preservation of Type. He says,

“This is readily suggested by the analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments…Vincentius of Lerins adopts this illustration in distinct reference to Christian doctrine. “Let the soul’s religion,” he says, “imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, developes indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. Small are a baby’s limbs, a youth’s are larger, yet they are the same.”

And thus the type in infancy must correspond to the type in adulthood. The Pharisees are obviously applying something like this in their judgment of Christ’s teaching. They reason incorrectly that the doctrine of Moses in its maturity must include the hand washing necessarily, and that to deny it is to deny the law of Moses.

But Newman offers more thoughts on Preservation of Type, for he realizes that it can be misleading if taken in the wrong way.

However, as the last instances suggest to us, this unity of type, characteristic as it is of faithful developments, must not be pressed to the extent of denying all variation, nay, considerable alteration of proportion and relation, as time goes on, in the parts or aspects of an idea. Great changes in outward appearance and internal harmony occur in the instance of the animal creation itself. The fledged bird differs much from its rudimental form in the egg…

More subtle still and mysterious are the variations which are consistent or not inconsistent with identity in political and religious developments. The Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity has ever been accused by heretics of interfering with that of the Divine Unity out of which it grew, and even believers will at first sight consider that it tends to obscure it. Yet Petavius says, “I will affirm, what perhaps will surprise the reader, that that distinction of Persons which, in regard to proprietates is in reality most great, is so far from disparaging the Unity and Simplicity of God that this very real distinction especially avails for the doctrine that God is One and most Simple.”

…Nay, one cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the course of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of the past. Certainly: as we see conspicuously in the history of the chosen race. The Samaritans who refused to add the Prophets to the Law, and the Sadducees who denied a truth which was covertly taught in the Book of Exodus, were in appearance only faithful adherents to the primitive doctrine. Our Lord found His people precisians in their obedience to the letter; He condemned them for not being led on to its spirit, that is, to its developments. The Gospel is the development of the Law; yet what difference seems wider than that which separates the unbending rule of Moses from the “grace and truth” which “came by Jesus Christ?” Samuel had of old time fancied that the tall Eliab was the Lord’s anointed; and Jesse had thought David only fit for the sheepcote; and when the Great King came, He was “as a root out of a dry ground;” but strength came out of weakness, and out of the strong sweetness.

And here indeed Newman’s thought runs close to ours. The Pharisees mistakenly think that the preservation of the type must have a false outward similarity (with regard to ritual cleansing) instead of a more essential inner similarity (in the very spirit of the law on the order of divine charity). Jesus corrects them on this. The Pharisees misunderstood the proper development of doctrine.

And so, where the Pharisees think they have an authentic preservation of type in the insistence on ritual cleansing Jesus reveals to them that their entire outlook is incorrect by calling to mind the example of the fourth commandment and the qorban practice. The qorban practice is ostensibly harmonious with the Mosaic doctrine for it correctly states that that which is consecrated to God is not fit for other uses. But Jesus reveals to the Pharisees that this is only an apparent preservation of type, for the inner harmony of the doctrine has been seriously marred. That is because the qorban practice actually contradicted the type of the Mosaic law of honoring father and mother.

Here we may call to mind Newman’s example with the Trinity. At first glance it seems to contradict the basic type to say that the One God is Triune. Likewise, it seems to contradict the basic type to say that the ritual regulations of the Mosaic law must or can be abrogated. But at a deeper look, the Trinity of Persons reaffirms the Unity of the Godhead in a more profound way, and so too the affirmation of the spirit of the Mosaic law by Jesus reaffirms the goodness of the Mosaic law in a more profound way than the Pharisaical insistence on ritual washing and admittance of the qorban practice contrary to (the spirit of) the fourth commandment.

II. Indulgences and the Order of Charity.

It is an essential task for any person interpreting the claims of the Catholic Church to interpret them from a hermeneutic of continuity. For this reason, I will present the teaching on indulgences present in the most recent Enchridion Indulgentiarum: Normae et Concessiones, the fourth editio typica, as translated in the Manual of Indulgences. It may be objected that this is a more recent edition of the handbook of Indulgences, but I would insist that, in accord with a hermeneutic of continuity, we must always read doctrine retrospectively, with sympathy to its development in the life of the Church.

The Introduction lays out clearly the point of the reason for the revision of the manual of indulgences. It says that

“the principle prayers and principle works have been taken to be those which by tradition and by their suitability for present-day needs seem particularly apt, so that not only are faithful helped to make satisfaction for the punishment due their sins, but also, and above all, are encouraged to a greater zeal for the exercise of charity. This is the principle upon which the compilation of this work is based.”

To this end, the current manual states that:

Regarding personal piety, increased emphasis is given to the act of the individual believer (opus operantis), whence long lists of pious works (opus operantum), as it were distinct from the daily life of the Christian, are not compiled. Rather, a relatively small number of grants is indicated, the better to move the believer to make his life more fruitful and more holy, thereby eliminating “that split between the faith professed and the daily lives of many… by gathering into one vital synthesis all their undertakings in the human, domestic, professional, scholarly or technical sphere with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are harmonized unto God’s glory.”

And again,

The Apostolic Penitentiary therefore, rather than stress the repetition of formulas and acts, has been concerned to put greater emphasis on the Christian way of life and to focus attention on cultivating a spirit of prayer and penance and on the exercise of the theological virtues.

These should be very important for understanding how the Church understands indulgences. What the Church is currently trying to do is to draw out what is essential and at times obscured in practice regarding indulgences. Namely, it is trying to show and by its power to order indulgences towards the fulfillment of charity in the believer. Jesus commands us to follow the two commandments which sum up the entire law. These are to love God above all things and to love neighbor as yourself. The Christian life, and the life of prayer which the Christian is called to unceasingly, is merely a fulfillment of this twofold law. By ordering indulgences towards living the Christian life, the Church in turn orders indulgences towards charity.

Thus, in the introduction to the four general concessions we hear that,

Presented in the first place are the four general concessions by which the Christian faithful are encouraged to infuse with a Christian spirit all the actions that go to make up their daily lives and to strive in the ordering of their lives toward the perfection of charity.

They are quite aware of what they are doing.

The first general concession reads thus:

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, while carrying out their duties and enduring the harships of life, raise their minds in humble trust to God and make, at least mentally, some pious invocations.

I do not even need to explain. It continues:

By this first grant, the faithful are guided to full the command of Christ, “Pray always without becoming weary,” and at the same time are admonished to carry out their respective duties to preserve and strengthen their union with Christ.

To this end it quotes several Scriptures including:

“Rejoice in hope, be patient in trials, be constant in prayer.”

“Whether then you are eating or drinking, or whatever you are doing, do all for the glory of God.”

“With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones.”

“And whatever you do, kin word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

And others. It then quotes from document Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council which emphasizes the call to holiness of every believer.

The second grant reads:

A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, led by the spirit of faith, give compassionately of themselves or of their goods to serve their brothers in need.

I do not need to quote the Scriptures on this, they ought to be obvious to any Christian.

The third grant reads:

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in a spirit of penance, voluntarily abstain from something that is licit for and pleasing to them.

And the fourth grant reads:

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in the particular circumstances of daily life, voluntarily give explicit witness to their faith before others.

Now, these are quite clearly all things which good Christians ought to do. These are part of giving one’s life totally over to the Triune God, as the Scriptures enjoin in various ways by encouraging us to pray without ceasing, to suffer with Christ and carry our cross, and to spread the good news.

But not only does the Church merely use its power of binding and loosing to encourage the faithful to live the life of divine charity. It also has restructured the worth of a partial indulgence.

A plenary indulgence remits the entire temporal penalty due to sin. A partial indulgence remits it only in part. In the past the indulgences were measured by the Church on a system of days. This hearkens back to the penitential practice out of which indulgences developed. Originally, the Church would impose a penance on the faithful for sins which they had committed which lasted for a predetermined amount of time– indeed, similar practice and canons exist in the Eastern church to this day. Hence, a 300 days indulgence did not mean to imply that 300 days of temporal penalty were being removed from the believer’s soul. Rather, it meant to imply that the indulgence expiated temporal penalty due to sin equivalent to 300 days of the traditional penance.

The Church, however, in order to encourage more fervent charity in her members, has make a partial indulgence a ‘matching grant’ in current times. In this way the effectiveness of an indulgence is directly proportional to the piety and charity with which the believer fulfills the indulgenced work.

Hence the fourth norm on indulgences states:

N4. The faithful who perform with at least inward contrition an action to which a partial indulgence is attached obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church.

This is a brilliant development for the practice of indulgences because it encourages the believer to act with as much charity as possible and to do his best to be as charitable as possible. The believer who understands these norms and grants will understand that it is only by loving much that he will be forgiven much. As Peter says, charity covers a multitude of sins.

And so in this two-fold way the current practice of the Church strongly emphasizes the Christian believer’s participation in the order of divine charity.

Now this is far from a proof of the truth of the Catholic doctrine on indulgences. But it does indeed show the fittingness of indulgences in the divine plan as well as give ample room to evade charges that the Catholic practice of indulgences is a human tradition like that which Jesus condemned the Pharisees for supporting.

Indeed, by continuing and encouraging the basic principle of Christian living, indulgences are as far from falling under our Lord’s condemnation as possible. It seems also to fall under Newman’s sixth principle, which is “conservative action upon the past.” By this he means that:

it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a corruption.

In the context of religious development, this means that the genuine development must encourage and continue the original body of thought. And as I have shown through the Church’s current practice with indulgences, it does this in a most excellent way.

Indeed, the fittingness of the Church dispensing grants of indulgences in such a merciful and prudent way tells against the possibility of condemning the Church with this Scriptural text. The Pharisees are the ones who use their authority to, “tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23:4). The Church acts in the exact opposite way with its power of binding and loosing, by helping them to an easy yoke and a light burden. Indeed, the spirit of the Church’s practice and doctrine conserves the spirit of the gospel.

And this tells us that while indulgences may seem (to some people) to not preserve the type– at least outwardly– that we should be careful not to judge them on this basis. For when examining indulgences inwardly and according to their spirit they are in harmony with the gospel principles and which leads to a fuller realization of what is presented in the gospels in the life of the Church. And this is the mark of a true development.

See the other three parts in this series.

1. Our Lord and the Principle of Tradition.
2. Tradition and Scripture.
3. Material Sufficiency, Tradition and the Fathers with Yves Congar OP.

4. Development of Doctrine, Indulgence, and the Order of Divine Charity.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Conversation: Indulgences Nothing But Greed?
• Conversation: Indulgences
• Conversation: Sola Scriptura vs Illiteracy Rates
• WWLS – What Would Luther Say? Indulgences are BACK!