An Eastern Tradition: Reduction of Penance and Sufferage

[Vico]

:banghead: To avoid repetition, I’ll just refer to a previous [post=6274322]post[/post].

You said, in that post: “The Latin concept just does not mesh with it. But because the word “indulgence” itself is not used, apparently some believe that the Latin explanation applies by default.”

I am not one of those that think the Latin explanation applies by default, in fact I do not use the Latin explanation. I agree that the Latin doctrine is different than the Eastern Churches, as you can see from my remarks. Maybe you are thinking of somebody elses remarks.

 

[malphono]

You said, in that post: “The Latin concept just does not mesh with it. But because the word “indulgence” itself is not used, apparently some believe that the Latin explanation applies by default.”

I am not one of those that think the Latin explanation applies by default, in fact I do not use the Latin explanation. I agree that the Latin doctrine is different than the Eastern Churches, as you can see from my remarks. Maybe you are thinking of somebody elses remarks.

I would think that the first two paragraphs of that earlier [post=6274322]post[/post] are more to the point.

I dunno, maybe it’s just me today.

 

[Cecilianus]

** The Latin teaching on indulgences and the Oriental teaching on oikonomia are somewhat analogous. In both instances, a lessening of temporal punishment can occur as a result of penitential acts of contrition. But the teaching on oikonomia only applies to this world, not the life hereafter.

Blessings,
Marduk

In the Latin tradition the indulgences offered for the dead are supplicatory and up to the mercy (or the discretion) of God, since the Church strictly speaking only has authority over the living; those that are living can receive indulgences from the Church because we are still under the Church’s jurisdiction. In the East, is there any distinction between the way prayers are offered for the dead and those for the living?

 

[Vico]

I would think that the first two paragraphs of that earlier [post=6274322]post[/post] are more to the point.

I dunno, maybe it’s just me today.

You said:

“As I said early on in the other thread, I have no problem with the Latin concept (“dogma” if you prefer) of indulgences, insofar as the Latin Church is concerned and insofar as it (a) is consistent with the Latin teaching on Purgatory and (b) is consistent with Latin theological constructs. Where I do have a problem is the attempt to translate those matters to the Orient (and, by extension, the East).”

I see that by “those matters” you mean Latin dogma, Latin teaching on Purgatory, Latin theological constructs. And you object to (have a problem with) the attempt to translate those matters to the Orient.

Excluding purgatory, which is not necessary part of the dogma of indulgences.

So do you believe that:

1. the use of Indulgences for the Christian people is most salutary
2. indulgences are useful
3. the Church has the power of granting indulgences
4. one should not attempt to translate those matters to the Eastern Chruches

 

[malphono]

You said:

“As I said early on in the other thread, I have no problem with the Latin concept (“dogma” if you prefer) of indulgences, insofar as the Latin Church is concerned and insofar as it (a) is consistent with the Latin teaching on Purgatory and (b) is consistent with Latin theological constructs. Where I do have a problem is the attempt to translate those matters to the Orient (and, by extension, the East).”

I see that by “those matters” you mean Latin dogma, Latin teaching on Purgatory, Latin theological constructs. And you object to (have a problem with) the attempt to translate those matters to the Orient.

Excluding purgatory, which is not necessary part of the dogma of indulgences.

So do you believe that:

1. the use of Indulgences for the Christian people is most salutary
2. indulgences are useful
3. the Church has the power of granting indulgences
4. one should not attempt to translate those matters to the Eastern Chruches

Based on your pro-indulgence argument, it’s difficult to exclude the Purgatory reference.

For the rest:

(1) perhaps for the Latins. Otherwise, no, not necessarily.
(2) perhaps for the Latins. Otherwise, no, not necessarily.
(3) yes, with a qualification: this means something according to Latin theology and practice, but little (in anything) in Oriental theology or practice.
(4) a resounding yes.

 

[Vico]

Based on your pro-indulgence argument, it’s difficult to exclude the Purgatory reference.

For the rest:

(1) perhaps for the Latins. Otherwise, no, not necessarily.
(2) perhaps for the Latins. Otherwise, no, not necessarily.
(3) yes, with a qualification: this means something according to Latin theology and practice, but little (in anything) in Oriental theology or practice.
(4) a resounding yes.

Only “perhaps”: so you don’t really believe it then?

Purgatory is not part of the decree on indulgences, it is not necessary. The Oriental theology basis of indulgences is as shown with items 1, 2, 3 in the early post, from the Greek Fathers. These are given in Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967).

It is not required to utilized indulgences, it should also not be prohibited or looked down upon as it is a matter of Catholic faith and that would be uncharitable. Most certainly, the bishops in non Latin paticular Churches have given indulgences, and they are only those authorized by The Pope (it is not a power of Holy Orders).

Since the CCEO was only established in 1990, and the revisions to the The Manual of Indulgences, was revised in 1999, including the Eastern Churches so it is a recent development, and many are not knowledgable about it. (I only found out about it by accident when I found a book on the topic and read it – 2008 or 2009.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

I disagree with mardukm’s assertion that the Eastern tradition is less penitential. It might not require penance after confession of sins but that doesn’t make it less penitential.

That has not been my experience with speaking to people from the Eastern Byzantine Tradition. You may find scattered instances of a penitential spirituality among the Easterns (e.g., St. Herman of Alaska, who was known to self-flagellate with the best of the Latin Saints), but in general, the Easterns have a less developed theology on suffering than the Oriental and Latin Tradition. I’ve found that Easterns generally eschew the theological value of suffering altogether. Case in point, the Easterns may have strict fasting rules, but I have personally never met an Eastern who regards fasting as a penitential act. This penitential spirituality is directly tied, I believe, to the fact that the Oriental and Latin Traditions have a more explicit doctrine of Atonement than the Eastern Tradition has.

Of course, your experience with the Easterns may be different.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Case in point, the Easterns may have strict fasting rules, but I have personally never met an Eastern who regards fasting as a penitential act.

I’ve never been taught or thought of it as penitential in nature. I’m sure that the idea is there it’s just rarely emphasized. Fasting is thought of as helping to facilitate repentance but not as penance specifically.

This penitential spirituality is directly tied, I believe, to the fact that the Oriental and Latin Traditions have a more explicit doctrine of Atonement than the Eastern Tradition has.

There may be some truth to this.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

I’ve never been taught or thought of it as penitential in nature. I’m sure that the idea is there it’s just rarely emphasized. Fasting is thought of as helping to facilitate repentance but not as penance specifically.

There may be some truth to this.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, brother Joe.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

So do you believe that:

1. the use of Indulgences for the Christian people is most salutary
2. indulgences are useful
3. the Church has the power of granting indulgences
4. one should not attempt to translate those matters to the Eastern Chruches

I accept brother Malphono’s answers to your query here. Despite the sanguine nature of your statements, there is an underlying concept in the Latin teaching on indulgences that is fundamentally different from the Oriental teaching. Brother Jimmy had previously stressed this difference. Permit me to give a more detailed explanation (before I do so, please have a look at this, which I posted a while ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4457555&postcount=15)

In the early Church, penance came in two forms - (1) penitential acts of contrition and (2) an accompanying temporal punishment that came in the form of a minor excommunication. On the discretion of one’s confessor by the authority of the bishop, an indulgence from the minor excommunication was given upon evidence of genuine contrition (dependant on one’s penitential actions). As mentioned in the link, the term “indulgence” fell out of use in the Eastern and Oriental Churches, and the term oikonomia has taken its place.

According to the Oriental and Latin teaching, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for the purpose of satisfying the Justice of God (that is distinct from the Eastern understanding which generally does not contain reference to the Justice of God in the Sacrament of Reconciliation). From that point, the Oriental and Latin teachings diverge. To Orientals, the Justice of God has been fully satisfied in the confessional, and penance is enacted as an aid in one’s sanctification or theosis (the use of oikonomia as mentioned above is itself an aid to sanctification or theosis). To Latins, on the other hand, the penance (with the accompanying indulgence) is an extension of the Justice of God. And therein lies the unavoidable difference.

There are analogous concepts shared between the West and the Orient on the matter, but as stressed by brother jimmy, one can’t escape the underlying difference.

Having said that, I do not see that these differences warrant disunity. They are legitimate distinctions within the Catholic Church, and do not affect our common Catholic Faith. I am fully aware of the complaints and accusations made by Orientals against the Latin teaching - namely, that the Latin teaching contradicts the doctrine of Atonement. But after having studied the Latin teaching on its own terms (getting the story of the horse from the horse’s mouth, and not the cow’s), I no longer see the viability of that polemic. If anyone is interested to read about how I have reconciled the Latin teaching with my Oriental sensibilities, let me know, and I’ll attempt a concise explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

According to the Oriental and Latin teaching, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for the purpose of satisfying the Justice of God (that is distinct from the Eastern understanding which generally does not contain reference to the Justice of God in the Sacrament of Reconciliation). From that point, the Oriental and Latin teachings diverge. To Orientals, the Justice of God has been fully satisfied in the confessional, and penance is enacted as an aid in one’s sanctification or theosis (the use of oikonomia as mentioned above is itself an aid to sanctification or theosis). To Latins, on the other hand, the penance (with the accompanying indulgence) is an extension of the Justice of God. And therein lies the unavoidable difference.

Having said that, I do not see that these differences warrant disunity. They are legitimate distinctions within the Catholic Church, and do not affect our common Catholic Faith. I am fully aware of the complaints and accusations made by Orientals against the Latin teaching - namely, that the Latin teaching contradicts the doctrine of Atonement. But after having studied the Latin teaching on its own terms (getting the story of the horse from the horse’s mouth, and not the cow’s), I no longer see the viability of that polemic. If anyone is interested to read about how I have reconciled the Latin teaching with my Oriental sensibilities, let me know, and I’ll attempt a concise explanation.

I’d be interested in hearing how you reconciled them, Marduk. In my experience, having confessed in the Latin rite all the time (I have yet to ask a Byzantine priest to hear my confession - mostly because I see no reason to change spiritual advisors), penance satisfies not so much the justice of God - which was satisfied by Christ on Calvary - but heals the lingering effects caused by the sin itself (such as the habit inclining me to sin again, or whatever other consequences remain). What you are calling the “Oriental teaching” is pretty much the same as what I understand the Latin teaching to be.

Of course, penance in the Latin Church any more is so light that it is just a formality we have to go through in order to remind ourselves to stop sinning, rather than an actual remedy for the habit of sin.

 

[Aramis]

I’d be interested in hearing how you reconciled them, Marduk. In my experience, having confessed in the Latin rite all the time (I have yet to ask a Byzantine priest to hear my confession - mostly because I see no reason to change spiritual advisors), penance satisfies not so much the justice of God - which was satisfied by Christ on Calvary - but heals the lingering effects caused by the sin itself (such as the habit inclining me to sin again, or whatever other consequences remain). What you are calling the “Oriental teaching” is pretty much the same as what I understand the Latin teaching to be.

Of course, penance in the Latin Church any more is so light that it is just a formality we have to go through in order to remind ourselves to stop sinning, rather than an actual remedy for the habit of sin.

You haven’t been to a Dominican Priest-Friar lately, have you?

The penances are often powerful reminders; lessons, not punishments.

 

[Vico]

Reference to post:

…I accept brother Malphono’s answers to your query here. Despite the sanguine nature of your statements, there is an underlying concept in the Latin teaching on indulgences that is fundamentally different from the Oriental teaching. Brother Jimmy had previously stressed this difference…

Marduk, I want to politely say, that what you describe about the Mystery of Confession for the Latin Church seems incorrect to me. Following is the way I have learned the Latin theology:

The Lord imparts to his apostles:

1. his own power to forgive sins,
2. and also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church.

In the Mystery of Confession:

1. One receives forgiveness from God with one’s proper contrition, confession, and absolution of the priest, and at that time receives the Holy Spirit (sanctifying grace, the justice of God by which He makes us just) and the sin is remitted. That is God grants the penitent “pardon and peace.”
2. The confessor proposes certain acts of “penance” or “satisfaction” to be performed by the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits proper to a disciple of Christ. (This used to be done in public prior to absolution, for serious sins, and could be years without communion.)

Therefore what you said for Orientals that “the Justice of God has been fully satisfied in the confessional, and penance is enacted as an aid in one’s sanctification”, is also true for the Latin Church.

The confusion occurs for people due to the terminology used, in the Latin Church “temporal punishment due sin” refers to the purification needed for deification (theosis), for which the penance is useful. This purification brings about our diefication (theosis), and is not requried for forgiveness nor for sanctifying grace. Proper contrition requries willingnes to do any assigned penance however, which for example, could be restitution of a stolen item.

Also, two different forms of confession (mortal and venial) were merged into one in the Latin Church after receiving a more lenient form from the East. The less serious sins (venial) are not damning but do obstruct diefication.

Markuk, you said: “Despite the sanguine nature of your statements, there is an underlying concept in the Latin teaching on indulgences that is fundamentally different from the Oriental teaching.”

Well, I have not commented on the Latin teaching on indulgences, but am familiar with it. That is because it is not necessary to comment on the Latin teachings to accept the indulgence dogmas, nor to utilize indulgences, and is specific to the theology of the Latin Church. The Latin concept is “temporal punishment” which can be translated (for Eastern Churches) to “purification”. As in the three stages of spiritual ascent: purification from the passions, illumination by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and theosis, by the grace of the Holy Spirit. It can also be called healing which is for our Theosis.

I agree with you that “… I do not see that these differences warrant disunity.” And I go further in saying that indulgences are compatible with all particular Churches.

References

Catholic: “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, 1992, and “Modern Catholic Dictionary” by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1999.
Orthodox: “Patristic Theology: The University Lectures of Father John Romanides” 2007.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Therefore what you said for Orientals that “the Justice of God has been fully satisfied in the confessional, and penance is enacted as an aid in one’s sanctification”, is also true for the Latin Church.

I realize full well that this is also true of the Latin Church. But, as repeatedly stated, that is not all that the Latin Church teaches. Here is what Trent had to say on the matter:

"But let them bear in mind that the satisfaction they impose is not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity, but also to inflict reparatory punishment for past sins."
Session XIV, chapter 8.

THAT is the difference between the Latin and Oriental teachings on the issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Of course, penance in the Latin Church any more is so light that it is just a formality we have to go through in order to remind ourselves to stop sinning, rather than an actual remedy for the habit of sin.

I have gone to a few confessors in the Latin Church, and you are right – the penance is very light. As far as penance is concerned, the confessors I’ve been to treat you more like a patient, rather than a sinner deserving punishment. I think that is a good direction to take for the Latin Church, wouldn’t you agree?

I’d be interested in hearing how you reconciled them, Marduk.

Thanks for your interest. Before I explain, I would first like to demonstrate the Oriental Tradition’s views on satisfying the Justice of God. I do this because I have crossed swords with some Eastern brethren who always claim I am misrepresenting the Oriental Traditions.

From the Copts:
“After his fall, man became in need to enjoy the risen life, and at the same time he was in need for One who can redeem him by realising God’s justice.”
Fr. Tadros Malaty, Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church, p.300

“In the New Testament, God’s love and Justice were proclaimed on the cross. For “Mercy and truth have met together” (Ps 85:10). Now we live in the time of Grace; however the Grace of God goes hand in hand with His Divine Justice.”
suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=32&catid=61

From the Armenians:
**“The purpose of the sacrifice on the Cross was the reconciliation of man with God, the atonement for the sins of man and their expiation, in general.” **
Bishop S. Kaloustian, Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church

**“This sacrifice is offered
1.As a memorial of the Passion and Death of our Lord.
2.To satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against Him.
3.To be united with Jesus Christ, the source of our spirituallife.
4.To thank Him for all His benefits to us.
5.To obtain all other graces and blessings through Jesus Christ” **
armenianchurch.weebly.com/sacrements-amp-divine-liturgy.html

From the Syrians:
“ The Lord Christ in his death was a substitute: He died instead of humanity and his death was necessary to redeem humanity from the justice of God and to reconcile between his justice and his mercy. This was done intentionally, by his own will and the will of his heavenly father. While he was the incarnate God innocent of sin, infallible, he took the place of sinful humanity and bore the suffering willingly instead of them.”
syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/sermons/peace-with-god/

Though the Western and Oriental Churches share that much, theologically speaking, Oriental polemics exist against the Western teaching on penance (and the accompanying indulgences). The argument states that the Western teaching on penance contradicts the doctrine of Atonement, because it makes Christ’s Sacrifice insufficient to satisfy God’s Justice. The Westerns, Orientals argue, require something more from the penitent Christian, beyond the all-sufficient Atonement of Christ’s Sacrifice.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The typical Latin Catholic response is that Christ’s Sacrifice satisfies the ETERNAL punishment due the Justice of God, but not the TEMPORAL punishment due the Justice of God. At first glance, that might seem sufficient to the Latin, since the Oriental Churches also accept the notion of some sort of temporal suffering due to one’s sins. But this Latin response actually exacerbates the matter, because Orientals generally don’t believe temporal suffering to be a punishment – at least not punishment in the sense of satisfying Divine Justice. As already mentioned in an earlier post, penance – to an Oriental – is not performed for penal satisfaction, but is rather medicinal. It is for the purpose of sanctification/ theosis/ increasing holiness, not for paying back a holy debt to God. And that is because the holy debt has been completely satisfied by Christ Himself.

When I was not yet Catholic, I thought that this Latin teaching was so blasphemous – imagine believing that Christ’s Sacrifice was insufficient!!!

So one day (I was not yet Catholic) while I was reading the documents of the Council of Trent, I came upon these statements:
“In making satisfaction for our sins, we are made like Christ Jesus, who has satisfied for our sins, and from whom is all our capability. We also have the certain pledge that if we suffer with him we shall also be glorified with him. The satisfaction which we make for our sins is not such that it is not made through Christ Jesus. For of ourselves we cannot do anything as our own, but with the help of him who strengthens us we can do all things. A man has nothing in which he can take pride, but all our pride is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we move, in whom we make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance, which have all their value from Christ, are offered to the Father by Christ, and are accepted by the Father through Christ…If anyone says that satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sins cannot be made to God, either by the penances sent from God and patiently endured or by those imposed by the priest, nor by penances voluntarily taken, such as fasts, prayers, almsgiving or other works of piety, through the merits of Christ…let him be anathema.”

“HOLD ON!” I said to myself in shock. I had been led to believe that Catholic penance has nothing to do with Christ or His Sacrifice, but is a purely human action, an addition that is something aside and apart from Christ or His Sacrifice. I held my conclusions at bay for I still had one more question – what are the Catholics talking about when they speak of the “merits of Christ?” So I looked it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and here is what I found:
“It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi; Sess. XIV, cap. viii).”

I felt a cold sweat (as anyone must when one’s beliefs are proven wrong) as I realized that what I was reading from these Catholic sources contradicted everything I had heard and learned about what the Catholic Church teaches on penitential satisfaction! I read from the documents of Catholics that the very efficacy of satisfaction in Catholic penance IS the Sacrifice of Christ.

So Catholic penance does not, after all, violate the efficacy of the Atonement, but rather DEPENDS on the efficacy of the Atonement.

Since that time, I have regarded the Catholic teaching on penance as a legitimate Christian belief – quite far from the blasphemy I used to think it was. I am not 100% sure that the Latin teaching is right, but I am 100% sure that it is not wrong. That was enough for me to be comfortable with my decision to join the Catholic communion. As was the case in so many instances during my journey to the Catholic Church, the value of learning about the Catholic Church from her own teachings (instead of non-Catholic polemics) cannot be overstated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I’ve never been taught or thought of it as penitential in nature. I’m sure that the idea is there it’s just rarely emphasized. Fasting is thought of as helping to facilitate repentance but not as penance specifically.
…

penitential: of or pertaining to penitence or penence
penitence: the quality or state of being penitent: sorrow for sins or faults
penance: an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentence from sin

Saint John Chrysostom on the Manner in which We ought to do Penance:

“This is what I call penance: when a man not merely forsakes his sins, but does good works in the place of them. Bring forth fruits worthy of penance, says St. John. How are we to do this? I answer, by doing what is directly opposed to our sins. … For unseemly revels substitute fasting, and for excess of wine, punish thyself by drinking water.”

From “Illustrated Explanation of the Holy Sacraments” By Hermann Rolfus, Ferreol Girardey, 1898, p212. (Google Books)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

penitential: of or pertaining to penitence or penence
penitence: the quality or state of being penitent: sorrow for sins or faults
penance: an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentence from sin

Saint John Chrysostom on the Manner in which We ought to do Penance:

“This is what I call penance: when a man not merely forsakes his sins, but does good works in the place of them. Bring forth fruits worthy of penance, says St. John. How are we to do this? I answer, by doing what is directly opposed to our sins. … For unseemly revels substitute fasting, and for excess of wine, punish thyself by drinking water.”

From “Illustrated Explanation of the Holy Sacraments” By Hermann Rolfus, Ferreol Girardey, 1898, p212. (Google Books)

Forgive my forthrightness, but I feel you’re trying to force something. So what if brother josephdaniel has a different understanding? As stated before, there are strains of penitential spirituality within EO’xy (as evinced by St. Herman of Alaska), but there is nothing wrong if many or most Easterns don’t have it. Eastern spirituality is just as helpful as Oriental or Latin spirituality in bringing people close to God, and that is what matters. It depends on where each person is at in their own journey. No one spirituality is inherently better than another, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

…Forgive my forthrightness, but I feel you’re trying to force something. So what if brother josephdaniel has a different understanding? …

I am not opposing josephdaniel, I have supported his statement that

“Fasting is thought of as helping to facilitate repentance but not as penance specifically.”

It is not for show, but to facililtate repentance, that is, transformation. As St. John Chrysostom explains.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I realize full well that this is also true of the Latin Church. But, as repeatedly stated, that is not all that the Latin Church teaches. Here is what Trent had to say on the matter:

"But let them bear in mind that the satisfaction they impose is not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity, but also to inflict reparatory punishment for past sins."
Session XIV, chapter 8.

THAT is the difference between the Latin and Oriental teachings on the issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree that the presentation in the Latin Church is different, as stated before. That is why I mentioned “temporal punishment” translates to “purification”. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472 which I summarize, we learn about punishments:

1. Sin has a double consequence (only b is present in every sin):

a. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God: this privation of eternal life is called the “eternal punishment” of sin.
b. Every sin entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified to free one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin.

1. These two punishments are not vengeance inflicted by God, but are from the very nature of sin.
2. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

The decree from Trent Session XIV, 8, that you gave, refers to the priest assigning of penance. This is also done in the Eastern Churches. And as was shown in the statement of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the early post, the penence is an ancient practice of propitiation (reconcilliation). A more complete quote from Trent Session XIV, 8:

“The priests of the Lord must therefore, so far as reason and prudence suggest, impose salutary and suitable satisfactions, in keeping with the nature of the crimes and the ability of the penitents; otherwise, if they should connive at sins and deal too leniently with penitents, imposing certain very light works for very grave offenses, they might become partakers in the sins of others. But let them bear in mind that the satisfaction they impose be not only for the protection of a new life and a remedy against infirmity, but also for the atonement and punishment of past sins; for the early Fathers also believed and taught that the keys of the priests were bestowed not to loose only but also to bind. It was not their understanding, moreover, that the sacrament of penance is a tribunal of wrath or of punishments, as no Catholic ever understood that through our satisfactions the efficacy of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any way diminished; but since the innovators wish to understand it so, they teach, in order to destroy the efficacy and use of satisfaction, that a new life is the best penance.”

The dogmatic teaching about indulgences, however, does not involve belief in any particular presentation of a particular Church, only that:

1. indulgences are useful
2. the Church has the power of granting indulgences

These follow from the first three quotes of the Eastern Fathers that I gave.