Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Indulgences

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Keep lookin for Lutherans.
    I'd settle for Moravians at this point!

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Do you think I'm that naive?
    Keep lookin for Lutherans.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    I hope you are not so naive as to believe that those who went, all went under that condition. I'm quite sure that they often went for the pay, and hey why not try to get time off in purgatory while at it for all those times I drank too much ale and "accidentally" was caught looking at another woman....or something. (not necessarily, but you get the idea)
    Do you think I'm that naive?

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Far be it from me to defend the crusades!!! But perhaps it is worth knowing that no indulgence was granted for simply becoming a crusader. This was only granted for "whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". But, the origin was earlier, when people made pilgrimages as mendicants to the holy land as an expression of their repentance for very serious crimes, eg, murder. Before long, knights went along to defend those who were being killed on the road, and eventally it seemed more efficient to just liberate the holy land. To this day, Christian nations are still involved in the military defense of Israel from Arabs and Muslims, all in the name of misguided Christian militarism, in my humble opinion.
    I hope you are not so naive as to believe that those who went, all went under that condition. I'm quite sure that they often went for the pay, and hey why not try to get time off in purgatory while at it for all those times I drank too much ale and "accidentally" was caught looking at another woman....or something. (not necessarily, but you get the idea)

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    I hope you can take this correction here...but sure there was military code, however you ought to take note that a person could receive an indulgence simply by becoming a crusader and the primary criticism is that the crusades allowed for greed and violence to go unchecked by all involved. If your given an order "kill and take" well what do you think is going to happen?" Hence OBP's assesment is not incorrect. In addition, the use and abuse of the indulgence system here to "go to war" most likely was the trigger of the monetary abuse later which sparked the massive reformation.
    Far be it from me to defend the crusades!!! But perhaps it is worth knowing that no indulgence was granted for simply becoming a crusader. This was only granted for "whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". But, the origin was earlier, when people made pilgrimages as mendicants to the holy land as an expression of their repentance for very serious crimes, eg, murder. Before long, knights went along to defend those who were being killed on the road, and eventally it seemed more efficient to just liberate the holy land. To this day, Christian nations are still involved in the military defense of Israel from Arabs and Muslims, all in the name of misguided Christian militarism, in my humble opinion.
    Last edited by robrecht; 05-29-2014, 08:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. No, Pope Urban the Second never said the Crusaders could "do whatever they want", that's completely idiotic. In fact, he said the opposite, that anyone, quote, "acting out of malice or arrogance" would be excommunicated.
    Turn down the hyperbole, big boy. Bombast doesn't faze me. Pope Urban may have called the First Crusade, but I'm fairly certain he didn't call all of them. Regardless, was anyone actually excommunicated for their actions during the Crusades? The Crusaders were in general no choirboys.
    We're discussing indulgences themselves, not purgatory.
    Are you the thread starter now? One almost gets the notion you're reluctant to discuss the topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    This is true.



    This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. No, Pope Urban the Second never said the Crusaders could "do whatever they want", that's completely idiotic.



    We're discussing indulgences themselves, not purgatory.
    I hope you can take this correction here...but sure there was military code, however you ought to take note that a person could receive an indulgence simply by becoming a crusader and the primary criticism is that the crusades allowed for greed and violence to go unchecked by all involved. If your given an order "kill and take" well what do you think is going to happen?" Hence OBP's assesment is not incorrect. In addition, the use and abuse of the indulgence system here to "go to war" most likely was the trigger of the monetary abuse later which sparked the massive reformation.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimelessTheist
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Weak. Anything to do with paying money for a desired result is wide open to abuse.
    This is true.

    The Crusades were an especially egregious period (tell people who like to fight that if they go fight somewhere else they can do whatever they want without consequences? Oy.), but I'm referring to the first quarter or so of the 16th century. When was this council?
    This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. No, Pope Urban the Second never said the Crusaders could "do whatever they want", that's completely idiotic. In fact, he said the opposite, that anyone, quote, "acting out of malice or arrogance" would be excommunicated.

    ot really. The whole idea of indulgences is dependent on the idea of purgatory.
    We're discussing indulgences themselves, not purgatory.
    Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-29-2014, 08:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    An indulgence was something I never actually understood as a Catholic, and I think what understanding I had was wrong. Honestly, the history of them was always at best shady. From what I can read, the doctrine for it applying to the soul is not applied until the latter middle ages and certainly not clarified until 1415. Physical indulgences or time off or away from penance are applied much earlier (which makes sense time off in exchange for community service, heck we still do that in capital offenses and misdemeanors.) What it demonstrates at best is a very major misunderstanding of the Grace we receive from Christ. I can see a Biblical case for Purgatory, Confession and Penance, but I cannot make a case for indulgences. This is where the RCC has gone to far in attempting to cover its own shortcomings.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    That sounds vaguely Origenist (except he believed that everyone would learn eventually).
    Not that there's anything wrong with that. I suppose it may depend on how vague one is, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    That's Yuengling, heathen!
    So it is; I repent in dust and ashes! Still looking for Lutherans, 'though.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    By the way, Purgatory was invented as a place of repentance for those of us who are slow learners. We may need a little more time.
    That sounds vaguely Origenist (except he believed that everyone would learn eventually).

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Any system is open to abuse, and there are many real world examples of con-men convincing people of things that clearly aren't true.
    Weak. Anything to do with paying money for a desired result is wide open to abuse.
    What "time" are you talking about, exactly? I know they held a council in order to restrict the abuse of indulgences, after word got around that Pardoners were selling them past the legal limit, and promising people all kinds of things about them that weren't true.
    The Crusades were an especially egregious period (tell people who like to fight that if they go fight somewhere else they can do whatever they want without consequences? Oy.), but I'm referring to the first quarter or so of the 16th century. When was this council?
    Irrelevant to the case at hand.
    Not really. The whole idea of indulgences is dependent on the idea of purgatory.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Well, if you want scriptural support of purgatory, I can give you that, though I don't want to derail the thread.
    It's okay to explore a topic if the thread starter raises it.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    OK, here I am at the local pub, ice-cold Yeungling and a bowl of mushroom barley soup. Where are all the Lutherans?
    That's Yuengling, heathen!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X