Indulgences

[One Bad Pig]

You missed the part where I said "people lower on the rung sometimes abused this". A minority of Pardoners started telling people that, instead of simply allieviating temporal punishment in purgatory for sins already forgiven (which is what they actually did) they started telling people tgat indulgences could forgive sins, and even garentee salvation. Although a disgusting display, it's extremely clear that the higher-ups in the church did 'not' condone this, as evidenced by the limits and restrictions later put on the sale of indulgences, in an attempt to solve the problem. However, some people ignored even these restrictions, which eventually lead to the banning of the sales altogether.

What I'm trying to get at is, the Church has never taught that they did any more than what they were supposed to do.

I didn't miss that part; in fact, it prompted my follow-on question. If the RCC taught people properly what they did, then the system would not have been open for abuse, which appears to answer my follow-on question. I question how clearly the higher-ups did not condone this improper meaning at the time. Later attempts at rehabilitation are good, but do not establish that.

I'd like some support for the assertion that sins which are already forgiven require temporal punishment.

[Cow Poke]

New thread, so CP's doesn't veer wildly off-topic.

Thanks, OBP... both for starting a new thread, and for pursuing this topic. I was puzzled by TT's responses.

[TimelessTheist]

New thread, so CP's doesn't veer wildly off-topic.


Can you expound on this defense of indulgences? Can you demonstrate that the people who bought indulgences understood what (in your opinion) they actually do?

You missed the part where I said "people lower on the rung sometimes abused this". A minority of Pardoners started telling people that, instead of simply allieviating temporal punishment in purgatory for sins already forgiven (which is what they actually did) they started telling people tgat indulgences could forgive sins, and even garentee salvation. Although a disgusting display, it's extremely clear that the higher-ups in the church did 'not' condone this, as evidenced by the limits and restrictions later put on the sale of indulgences, in an attempt to solve the problem. However, some people ignored even these restrictions, which eventually lead to the banning of the sales altogether.

What I'm trying to get at is, the Church has never taught that they did any more than what they were supposed to do.

[One Bad Pig]

New thread, so CP's doesn't veer wildly off-topic.

[Martin Luther's] critism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, as that was a practice that the Church did many times in the past as well, to fund projects such as cathedrals and the Crusades, although I agree that many people loweron the rung did abuse the system, however, if you actually know what an indulgence actually does, the proposition that people can "buy forgiveness" is clearly unfounded.

Can you expound on this defense of indulgences? Can you demonstrate that the people who bought indulgences understood what (in your opinion) they actually do?