Are indulgences a "tangible" thing

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t think so, given that they “recommend” things that are absolutely required for staying out of Hell.

Could you show us where the Church uses such language as “recommend” for things that absolutely required for staying out of Hell? Your previous example was “It is highly recommended that you should go to Confession if you have committed a grave sin.” Could you show us where you go that from?

I think it is important that you do so as it seems to be your reason for interpreting “fitting” and “appropriate” as “have to” and “unless for some reason it is physically impossible”.

I sincerely hope that you don’t find my questions annoying or frustrating. I just think it is important that if we represent ourselves as answering a question, especially to someone who is learning the Catholic faith, we be as accurate as possible. As a catechist, I’m sure you share this position.

God bless you,
VC

 

[jmcrae]

VC;

We seem to really be rabbit-trailing here, but I will indulge you.

Look in the Compendium of the Catechism, under “Mystery of the Christian Faith,” and see how gentle and subtle the language is, there. I find no direct statement in there that “you will go to Hell, if you do not do this.” Just subtle clues that it would be less than ideal to not do those things.

Then, compare it with what we find in the Enchirodon.

You’ll see what I mean, then.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC;

We seem to really be rabbit-trailing here, but I will indulge you.

Thank you.

Look in the Compendium of the Catechism, under “Mystery of the Christian Faith,”

I can’t find that section. Could you indulge me further and point it out?

and see how gentle and subtle the language is, there. I find no direct statement in there that “you will go to Hell, if you do not do this.” Just subtle clues that it would be less than ideal to not do those things.

jmcrae, respectfully, it is not my burden to search the Catechism or Compendium to find gentle language in order to make your point that the Church uses gentle language when it really means something else.

Furthermore, I don’t quite understand why, if the Church does not say “You will go to Hell if you do not do this” you would extrapolate that when the Church says it is fitting to go to communion on the day of the indulgenced act that what it really means is that you “have to” unless it is “physically impossible”.

Why? Well for one, the Church is the custodian and administrator of indulgences and she can put any conditions she wishes on them. If the Church required, she could make it mandatory that communion be received on the same day. She could also do away with the requirement to receive communion altogether.

Look, you originally said that you “have to” receive Holy Communion on the same day. When I questioned your choice of language you said it means one should “do it that way, unless for some reason it is physically impossible”.

In order to justify your interpretation you said that the Church uses

very gentle language - if they say “it is highly recommended that you …” it’s usually a situation that will land you into Hell if you don’t do it".

This seems inapplicable anyway since we are not talking about “landing in Hell”, we are talking about gaining an optional indulgence. In any event you gave an example of this “gentle language” and said:

jmcrae:

(ie: " It is highly recommended that you should go to Confession if you have committed a grave sin.")

I asked you to show us where that is and you asked me to read the Compendium.

Maybe in both cases, when you said “have to” and when you gave the example about the Church saying it is “highly recommended that you should go to Confession if you have committed a grave sin” you simply miscommunicated.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

Whatever. Just do it.

This quibbling of language goes nowhere. The intent of the Church is that we do the best we can. Our actual best; not a half-hearted “try” that is pre-ordained to fail. Nor excuse ourselves on the basis of wording.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just do it.

Right. If you choose to try to obtain a optional indulgence then fulfill the conditions. Just note that you do not have to fulfill the conditions on the same day as the indulgenced act, but it is fitting and appropriate to do so.

jmcrae:

This quibbling of language goes nowhere.

Well, you can characterize it a quibbling. I would characterize it as accurately presenting what the Church actually says on the matter.

jmcrae:

The intent of the Church is that we do the best we can. Our actual best; not a half-hearted “try” that is pre-ordained to fail. Nor excuse ourselves on the basis of wording.

jmcrae, it doesn’t do you good to assume that people are trying to do a half-hearted job when it comes to obtaining an indulgence. And even if someone is taking that approach it doesn’t do you credit, on your own authority, to change what the Church said into a “have to” in order to “help” that person along.

Whatever.

I don’t think that “whatever” is the type of response those sincerely seeking what the Church teaches deserve. Catechists, and any who hold out themselves as teaching what the Church teaches, have an obligation to represent accurately what the Church teaches. As you said the Church asks us for our actual best, not a half-hearted try. “Whatever” seems quite half-hearted, and I don’t believe it is your best effort.

I want to hold you to a higher standard. I like you.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

Right. If you choose to try to obtain a optional indulgence then fulfill the conditions. Just note that you do not have to fulfill the conditions on the same day as the indulgenced act, but it is fitting and appropriate to do so.

Means that you should, unless there is some reason you can’t. Remember, hold yourself to the highest possible standard. Be an A+; not a D-. Rise to highest Heaven; don’t skate into the bottom-most level of Purgatory, within a hair’s breadth of the flames of Hell.

Well, you can characterize it a quibbling. I would characterize it as accurately presenting what the Church actually says on the matter.

What the Church actually says is that it is fitting and appropriate to do it the same day. That (therefore) it is not fitting or appropriate to put it off to another day.

I don’t think that “whatever” is the type of response those sincerely seeking what the Church teaches deserve.

I was saying it to you; not to the inquirer, and I was saying it to your long-winded psychoanalysis of me; not to the subject under discussion.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Means that you should, unless there is some reason you can’t.

Ok. I agree that the Church teaches that:MORE CORRECT: you should, unless there is some reason you can’t **
and notEH, NOT SO MUCH: you have to, unless it is physically impossible **
I hope that you (and others who read this thread) can see the difference between these two. (And its not just me losing my mind.)

It just took me awhile to get it out of you.

I hope this little discussion wasn’t unpalatable to you (your comment about my long-winded psychoanalysis seemed a bit snarky). I know it can be annoying to have someone take you to task when you seemingly misstate or overstate something. But someone has got to do it.:thumbsup:You were much more amenable to correction the first time we had this discussion when you said:

jmcrae:

I stand corrected - and actually the 1991 edition specifies that only the prayers for the Pope and the reception of Holy Communion are “fittingly” done on the same day

No hard feelings?

VC

P.S. I’ll just note, to make it clear, that “physical impossibility” is a high standard and admits of few exceptions. Obviously, to me at least, moral impossibility would also count, as well as no impossibility at all. There can be many legitimate reasons that one does not receive Holy Communion on the same day as the indulgenced act.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay. Now that I’ve been publicly spanked, can we please get on with the thread?

Thanks!!

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks to JMCRAE and EElPS for their replies.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks to JMCRAE and EElPS for their replies.

You are most welcome.

 

[bquinn]

The reasoning behind what many texts teach as Prayers for the Pope and Communion should be on the same day, whereas confession can be several days before or after, is that we want to receive as many indulgences as possible. (Rem all those we help move from purgatory to heaven are praying for us at our time of death) I consider it a twofer (Give them the indulgence and then they pray for you and you receive remission of sin too).

Since each plenary indulgence must be accompanied by Communion, but one confession suffices for several. Hence it is recommended to receive Communion and pray for the pope daily, and confession once every 2 wks. This way you can receive ‘more’ indulgences.

My stumbling block is the ‘free from attachment to venial sin’. (for plenary indulgences. I certainly do not like any of my sins, but does habitual sin mean attachment. Eg thinking judgemental remarks. When they pop up, I don’t want them, but they happen anyway??

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Since each plenary indulgence must be accompanied by Communion, but one confession suffices for several. Hence it is recommended to receive Communion and pray for the pope daily, and confession once every 2 wks. This way you can receive ‘more’ indulgences.

Hi bquinn,

That is absolutely insightful, and a great practical reason (among other ones) for receiving Holy Communion every day.

But, although I was concerned about jmcrae overstating the requirements for obtaining an indulgence, I wouldn’t want us to understate what the Church says either.

So I don’t think you go far enough when you say that the reason the Church recommends Holy Communion and prayers for the Pope on the same day as the indulgenced act is to facilitate the faithful in gaining more indulgences. I think that it is always more fitting and more appropriate to receive Holy Communion on the same day, even if you only intend to get one indulgence a week, or one a month, or even one a year.

In other words, although you may be right that a practical reason for receiving Communion on the day of the indulgence is so you can obtain as many indulgences as possible, it doesn’t mean that the Church’s desire that we receive Holy Communion on the same day wouldn’t apply to someone who is only shooting for one indulgence.

What do you think?
VC

 

[bquinn]

Hi bquinn,

So I don’t think you go far enough when you say that the reason the Church recommends Holy Communion and prayers for the Pope on the same day as the indulgenced act is to facilitate the faithful in gaining more indulgences. I think that it is always more fitting and more appropriate to receive Holy Communion on the same day, even if you only intend to get one indulgence a week, or one a month, or even one a year.

In other words, although you may be right that a practical reason for receiving Communion on the day of the indulgence is so you can obtain as many indulgences as possible, it doesn’t mean that the Church’s desire that we receive Holy Communion on the same day wouldn’t apply to someone who is only shooting for one indulgence.

What do you think?
VC

Good Point! I wouldn’t want someone to think I meant that was the only reason the Church would recommend receiving Communiion on the same day as the indulgence. It’s just one. Obviously there are many powerful reasons for receiving Communion daily anyway, not taking into account the indulgences. The Church does recommend we receive Communion on the same day as the Indulgence. Why, if we are shooting for just one indulgence? (we’ll specify plenary here) My best guess is it makes us more focused on our intent, plus gives us a greater chance of being in a state of grace, as Communion does wipe away venial sins. (absolves, not remits)

I haven’t thought so much about why, just the Church recommends it, so I do it. I’ve learned Her wisdom is far greater than mine.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Good Point!

Thanks bquinn.

bquinn:

the Church recommends it, so I do it. I’ve learned Her wisdom is far greater than mine.

Now that’s a laudable attitude!

And the Church is a generous mother, She does everything possible to help us, including giving us so many opportunities to obtain indulgences!

VC

 

[bquinn]

And the Church is a generous mother, She does everything possible to help us, including giving us so many opportunities to obtain indulgences!

VC

That she is! It’s a shame we don’t all take greater advantage of obtaining all we can! I’ve seen where this and another thread talk about the remittance of punishment for sins, but has anyone talked about the healing effects of the indulgences on the world in general, as sin causes so much damage to the world? I figured you’ve been on these threads longer than I and may know if this has been discussed.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I’ve seen where this and another thread talk about the remittance of punishment for sins, but has anyone talked about the healing effects of the indulgences on the world in general, as sin causes so much damage to the world? I figured you’ve been on these threads longer than I and may know if this has been discussed.

Note that an indulgence does not obtain forgiveness of sin; it only obtains remission of temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven (as through the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Thus it seems that most of the healing effects for persons in the world (those still living) would come as a result of the Sacrament of Reconciliation celebrated prior to obtaining the indulgence. The spirit of detachment from all sin required in order to obtain a plenary indulgence is certainly beneficial to the person obtaining the indulgence (and to others in the world) because it will help that person avoid sin in the future.

As for the indulgence itself, a person can obtain an indulgence for himself or for a soul in purgatory, but not for another living person.

 

[cerad]

As for the indulgence itself, a person can obtain an indulgence for himself or for a soul in purgatory, but not for another living person.

So if someone were to build up a surplus of indulgences they could transfer them to a soul in purgatory? Sounds like an eBay plan.

 

[bquinn]

Note that an indulgence does not obtain forgiveness of sin; it only obtains remission of temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven (as through the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Thus it seems that most of the healing effects for persons in the world (those still living) would come as a result of the Sacrament of Reconciliation celebrated prior to obtaining the indulgence. The spirit of detachment from all sin required in order to obtain a plenary indulgence is certainly beneficial to the person obtaining the indulgence (and to others in the world) because it will help that person avoid sin in the future.

As for the indulgence itself, a person can obtain an indulgence for himself or for a soul in purgatory, but not for another living person.

All true. But, sin does more than just damage one person’s soul. Because we are members of the Body of Christ, our sins, even those most private, hurts His Body as surely as the Passion. Hence the healing effect of a Plenary Indulgence (or any indulgence for that matter) would also have a healing effect on His Body, the Church. So the need for sacramental confession for a fully initiated member of the body of Christ is of necessity since God forgives us with our contrition, but our sin has also offended the Body, and so we need to be reconciled to the Body sacramentally in the way the Head of the Body has ordained, through confession. So Confession is like the ointment that heals a wound, but an indulgence removes the pain and scar of the wound, not only from our souls, but from His Body.

 

[bquinn]

So if someone were to build up a surplus of indulgences they could transfer them to a soul in purgatory? Sounds like an eBay plan.

They don’t ‘build up’ God’s not an accountant. They are immediately applied to either your soul or a soul in purgatory. Personally, I think it’s better to offer them up for another soul, as Our Lord said “whatever you do for the least of these you do for me”. I think He would be more pleased with the generosity. Plus those souls you have helped, will be eternally grateful and will continue to pray for you until you are united with them in Heaven.

 

[Genesis315]

I think in order to understand indulgences one must understand how the doctrine developed. Traditionally, there are three parts to repentence: contrition, confession, and satisfaction (or bringing forth fruits of repentence, as Scripture puts it). An indulgence is a pardon or remission of the satisfaction one needs to make. It was also understood that if one did not make complete satisfaction before death, then the satisfaction would be made up in the afterlife. If the satisfaction extended to the afterlife, so must the indulgence.

Here’s a good example. You and I both rob our neighbors, but repent and our confessors happen to assign each of us 1 year in a monastic cell for penance (ever wonder why prisons are called “penitentiaries”?). Of course, if we died before a year, the remaining satisfaction would be made up in the afterlife (Purgatory).

As practiced in the early Church, the bishop (including the Pope) could remit our necessary satisfaction and let us out of our satisfaction early–this is like when St. Paul pardoned the incestuous man early and allowed him back to the community in Corinthians. Even if we died before the year was up, we wouldn’t have to make satisfaction in the afterlife because it was remitted by the indulgence.