Hi Via,

You wrote: " I thought I made it clear that pennance is a matter of course correction and has nothing to do with salvation or propitiation for sins."

Via, nobody would need a 'propitiation' for sins so long as they could accomplish 'remission' of sins on their own through penance.

Penance in Catholic dogma is (and has long been) a sacrament made pursuant to the remission of the penitents sin and definitely NOT only course correction. Your comment is either dishonesty or ignorance, though I wouldn't mean the latter in the derogatory sense. Even John A. Hardon in "the Catholic Catechism" states on page 487 "For the entire and perfect remission of these sins there are three acts required of the penitent..."

In Catholicism, the work of penance by a sinner has everything to do with the remission of sin....in fact, there is no 'forgiveness' without it. If you wish to split a hair with me and say that remission of sin by a penitent and propitiation for sin by Christ are separate things, then that is more Catholic (and not my) dogma, and I might compliment you with saying that I think you already know that.

Here you might like to clarify your statement by now saying "Oh, you mean that penance...." ??

In any case, your sentence is odd in light of your very next sentence where you grant that Catholicism does grant "participation in the salvation transaction", which I still maintain you were saying of Zaccheus. And it is because it is a very Catholic belief that it was very reasonable of me to think that was your allusion.

"I disagree that the pennance of Zacchaeus was either paltry or worthless."

I think to be fair to me you should have finished your sentence by saying "to his salvation." for it was about his salvation that I was speaking, as you already acknowledged. To now drop the notion and charge me with (effectively) saying that nobody should bother with good works isn't fair. Just because I'm calvinistic doesn't mean I don't help and believe in helping old ladies across the street or giving to the poor. We're not speaking of the inherent good in good works, we're talking about the capacity of any of our own good to stretch us further toward our rightness with God which, you may also know, to a Calvinist also means salvation. Only the saved are right with God. Again, given Catholic dogma, it is not unfair of me to charge you with saying that there is such value (of contributing to his remission of sin/salvation/rightness with God) as you analyze Zacchaeus's good works.

"works of charity changed his course and ensured that his repentence was genuine."

As a Catholic you may say so, as a Calvinist I say that his act he commits as a matter of his course has nothing necessarily to do with his repentance since even the unrepentant heathen do such works as Zacchaeus without affect to their course to hell. The works, of themselves, provision nothing toward the conditioning of man's soul. On Calvinist presuppositions (which we of course would simply say is Scripture and not mere bias), I can say so. As for his charity ensuring his repentance was genuine, again you use language we share with meanings that conflict. In Catholic dogma the "ensuring" is a power inherent in the act, a securing feature with it's own efficacy, whereas to a Calvinist the question would simply arise "ensures it to whom?"

I'm trying to show how our presuppositions create clashes in interpretation which are difficult to predict. When you write unawares, then you sound like a subtle deceiver, even if you are not or do not intend to be.

"nobody is making the case that he earned forgiveness by his proposition"

Since Catholicism says effectively if not exactly that about the sacrament of penitent acts demanded by a priest (at the Council of Florence -"The effect of this sacrament is deliverance from sin"- and the Council of Trent -"So far as pertains to its force and efficacy, the effect of this sacrament is reconciliation with God,") then are you willing to take a step away from it?

"Simply being in the presence of Christ, and in the light of a holy God, Zacchaeus became aware of his sinfulness, his need for forgiveness, and the need to embark upon a new course by costly amends."

Well spoken. To embark on a good Calvinist line of thinking, answer the question "And why was being in the presence of Christ not sufficient for the others, like the other thief on the cross?"

"Ephesians 2:8,9 is a hallmark passage for both Protestants and Catholics in understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith"

Close. So close I can't tell if, again, you are unaware of the gulf between us, or if you are being purposefully deceitful. We would insist the thought be completed by adding to the end of that sentence the word "alone", for in that very chapter St. Paul continues "... it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

But at Trent the Catholic Church insisted:

"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

and

"CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema."

Via, you want on the one hand to say that Zacchaeus was not buying his salvation. But at the same time you must preach that he was doing what was necessary to do for remission of his sins. That kind of language is simply doublespeak to a Calvinist since to us salvation and the forgiveness of sins are part of the same instant in our lives that occurs but once and never again. Only on Catholic presuppositions could one draw a distinction and deny salvation by works but participation in forgiveness at the same time.