Indulgences

[robrecht]

OK, here I am at the local pub, ice-cold Yeungling and a bowl of mushroom barley soup. Where are all the Lutherans?

[Sparko]

If I smash your window, and afterward said I was sorry, and you knew I meant it, you wouldn't mind forgiving me I assume. However I'm sure you'd ask me to put up a window again, or at least help you doing it.

Now there's nothing we can do at all, to merit in a strict way a repair for our crimes. However it is a teaching of the Catholic Church that we can have condign merit. In some sense we have to do this for our crimes, since even if the relationship to God is restored, there's still temporal punishment for the crime. I don't see the problem with this, even in terms of God's grace.

And yes isn't it a good thing, that the world being like that, that God would allow the Church to deal out these indulgences based upon the merit of the Church? So that by performing some actions in this world, God joins it with Christ's merit, and allows the person to be partially or fully remitted depending on how earnestly they've worked for it?

It's more like "I forgive you for breaking my window, if you feel really bad, and replace it. and to prove that you are really sorry, I want you to buy me a new car or I will call the police and turn you in"

When Jesus paid for our sins, he paid ALL of the payment necessary for our sins. We are washed clean and we have his righteousness credited to us. We don't have to still pay for the sin to God. We might still have consequences in THIS life (like going to prison) but not in the next. And indulgences do nothing to alleviate any punishment we get in this life for our sins.

There is nothing in the bible about handing out indulgences.

If we indeed owe a debt to God for the sins we commit, then I assume that payment by us is necessary and required by God. So if the church can just step in and say "OK Leonard, you don't have to pay for YOUR sin of lying because we are giving you an indulgence, but Sparko you still have to pay for your sin of lying" -- then basically the church is saying that it knows better than God who needs to pay for their sins. If God didn't want someone to pay in purgatory or whereever, then he wouldn't have imposed that debt on them in the first place.

It just makes no sense, other than as some scheme dreamt up by the catholics to control their members

[robrecht]

... So if the church can just step in and say "OK Leonard, you don't have to pay for YOUR sin of lying because we are giving you an indulgence, but Sparko you still have to pay for your sin of lying" -- then basically the church is saying that it knows better than God who needs to pay for their sins. If God didn't want someone to pay in purgatory or whereever, then he wouldn't have imposed that debt on them in the first place.

It just makes no sense, other than as some scheme dreamt up by the catholics to control their members

The popes (and others) believed it was better for you to accomplish your repentance now, here on earth, when you can benefit your fellow man directly. As Hillel said, "if not now, when?" Who's to say that God disagrees?

And it's not like they didn't already have plenty of other, more effective means of controlling their people and extorting money from them.

[Leonhard]

It's more like "I forgive you for breaking my window, if you feel really bad, and replace it. and to prove that you are really sorry, I want you to buy me a new car or I will call the police and turn you in"

I don't think this is fair analogy, because what I'm doing is not paying more than what I hurt. Actually a fairer comparison is "I forgive you for breaking every window in the Great Crystal Palace making sure it will never be built again. However I understand that you're sorry for having done this, so I'll forgive you out of my great love for you, but you'll have to spend some time in community prison before you can rejoin us. Though, if you help by gathering up twelve of the shards lying around, the time will be reduced a lot."

I think that asking a person to spend half an hour reading the Bible, after having taken communion, and in general rejecting sin in his life, is not asking a person to do far more in reparation than what was hurt. That implies a very low view of how heinous sins really are.

When Jesus paid for our sins, he paid ALL of the payment necessary for our sins.

Of course he did, I'm not talking about sins not being forgiven.

Sure if you've got venial sins on your soul when you die, they can only be forgiven in purgatory. However indulgences make no sense except for a person who has been forgiven of mortal sins, and all that requires is either perfection contrition or the sacrament of penance. Any person who's truly contrite gets forgiven. All it takes for even venial sins to be forgiven, is to take communion. However I don't see anywhere in the Bible, that we go straight to Heaven. I do see however in the tradition of the church, that there's purgatory, and that penance can reduce or eliminate the need to spend time there.

And its only through Christ's merit, that anyone else can get merit "Without me you can do nothing." That's why, when a person commits a mortal sin, they lose all the merit they have, and until they're forgiven, they can gain no more merit. Natural merit, as in virtues and wordly goodness? Yes. Supernatural merit with God? No.

We are washed clean and we have his righteousness credited to us. We don't have to still pay for the sin to God. We might still have consequences in THIS life (like going to prison) but not in the next.

Where is the scripture for this?

And indulgences do nothing to alleviate any punishment we get in this life for our sins.

You'll need to elaborate on this.

There is nothing in the bible about handing out indulgences.

I'm not sure about that, however even if it was true, so what? Where does it say in the Bible, that only the Bible is the sole authority? You won't find that. You'll find some edicts about "not going beyond what is said or written to you" in the epistles, but ultimately its only on the conjecture that the Bible exclusively contains that, and that there's no sacred tradition outside of it.

I won't argue against sola scriptura though as I'm not that sharp in it yet.

If we indeed owe a debt to God for the sins we commit, then I assume that payment by us is necessary and required by God. So if the church can just step in and say "OK Leonard, you don't have to pay for YOUR sin of lying because we are giving you an indulgence, but Sparko you still have to pay for your sin of lying" -- then basically the church is saying that it knows better than God who needs to pay for their sins.

Why? I don't see that. You have to understand, that if all of this is true, then the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. Then you would not be living in full communion with the Church. If you're truly contrite for your sins, you'll probably still be forgiven, but why should you benefit from the merit of the Church, since you've never asked for it, or participated in it?

We'll either have to finish our punishment for the sins we've committed in this world, or the next. It says so in the Bible. We won't be let out until the last coin has been paid. We can pay for some of that in this world through penance, works of mercy, etc... and by joining in the indulgences granted through the ministry of the Church. Failing to do that, we have to go to purgatory.

If God didn't want someone to pay in purgatory or where ever, then he wouldn't have imposed that debt on them in the first place.

God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell, they go there because they freely choose to sin, and do the wrong things. No fault can be assigned to Him at all. Likewise, even if we're in a state of grace, we can still fail to do proper penance for our past crimes against God's holiness, or commit new wounds which we don't do penance for. Again God is not to blame for our failures. If we need to go to that place, to be purified of any temporal consequences of our sins we didn't expiate while on Earth, then in the end we'll go there. Its our free choice.

It just makes no sense, other than as some scheme dreamt up by the catholics to control their members

Sounds familiar, when I was an atheist we kept saying about the whole notion of sin being something Christians used to control their members. This is a bad accusation Sparko, we believe it because its part of sacred tradition, it goes back as far back you care to look. Its been approved by the councils as an infallible teaching, and because we enjoy apostolic succession, they have the authority to bind on doctrines like Peter.

Outside of the notion of tradition, and the authority of the magisterium, I wouldn't be interested in the notion of indulgences either. I can just explain it, as best I can and perhaps deal with objections to it. Your real beef is with the authority of the Church.

[One Bad Pig]

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!

[One Bad Pig]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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).

[robrecht]

That's Yuengling, heathen!

So it is; I repent in dust and ashes! Still looking for Lutherans, 'though.

[robrecht]

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.

[Catholicity]

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.

[TimelessTheist]

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.

[Catholicity]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

[robrecht]

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.