Catholic Church and indulgances

[cfauster]

Regardless, if only our minor differences did not divide. Recently I read “The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Cardinal Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541” by Heinz Mackensen (Fairleigh Dickinson University), published in Church History, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec., 1958), pp. 312-337. If only those seeking reconciliation at that colloquy had been trusted more by the principles of their respective sides (Luther, and the Pope). Here’s how Mackensen puts it:

“The collocutors were, for the Catholic side, Eck, Gropper and Julius von Pflug, and for the Protestant side, Melanchthon, Butzer and Pistorius … In a series of twenty-three articles, principal points of theology were set forth in a manner as conciliatory to both sides as possible. When Contarini first saw the book he noted about twenty changes as necessary in order to eliminate errors. He further added the term transubstantiatio in the margin of the article dealing with the eucharist. The Catholic collocutors met Contarini each morning and he discussed with them the questions being currently considered…the collocutors, after some changes of the text, agreed upon the first four articles of the book (on the creation of man and his state before the fall, on free will, on the cause of sin, and on original sin). The fifth article dealt with man’s justification. As was to be expected this article led to long debate and great differences of opinion, but an article was finally developed which all the collocutors (Eck included), and Contarini as well, accepted. This success was, however, the beginning of the end. Luther in Wittenberg and the pope in Rome refused to accept this article.”

Almost 500 years later, progress has been made!

 

[po18guy]

Both were right about many things too. Had the politics and economics of 16th century Europe been different, maybe the schism would not have happened.

Consider the legions of persecuted Catholics who chose to suffer and fought from within for reform. Many paid a dear price for their obedience. The reform necessary in the Church did not come from without, but had already begun slowly from within, as it has in each age, and will continue to that last sunset. Sadly, the reformers chose to cut the tie to the anchor, and the ensuing theological entropy is the cause of much malaise in our age.

We are looking back. Rather, let us look forward to what is true and right and beautiful - in its fullness. That is a goal worth striving toward, worth commemorating.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for correcting my misunderstandings of the “days” and “years” of indulgences (and, as we agree, temporal “quantification” is secondary to more important aspects of indulgences).

I now understand that in Purgatory, because earthly time is not present so there are no earthly days or years, the earthly penance days and years associated with indulgences did not refer to absolute periods of time in Purgatory. Rather, those intervals of time given in measurable earthly penance days or years was to indicate the relative magnitude of penalty, which cannot be measured by any interval of time. See
catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences
for the following:

"How does one determine by what amount penalties have been lessened?"

Before Vatican II each indulgence was said to remove a certain number of “days” from one’s discipline—for instance, an act might gain “300 days’ indulgence”—but the use of the term “days” confused people, giving them the mistaken impression that in purgatory time as we know it still exists and that we can calculate our “good time” in a mechanical way. The number of days associated with indulgences actually never meant that that much “time” would be taken off one’s stay in purgatory. Instead, it meant that an indefinite but partial (not complete) amount of remission would be granted, proportionate to what ancient Christians would have received for performing that many days’ penance. So, someone gaining 300 days’ indulgence gained roughly what an early Christian would have gained by, say, reciting a particular prayer on arising for 300 days. To overcome the confusion Paul VI issued a revision of the handbook (Enchiridion is the formal name) of indulgences.

The announcement of that revision is here.

Handbook of Indulgences, Third Edition, 1986, might also be of use.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I have a few questions on indulgences, and this seems like the right place:

1. How does the Church determine what acts will lessen the penalty a soul has in Purgatory?
2. How does the Church how much of a penalty is reduced by taking part in an indulgence? For example if making a donation or performing a certain act will reduce a penalty by 300 days, how does it know that the penalty isn’t 200 days or one year?
3. Are there other acts not listed by Church which when performed act like indulgences and reduced one’s penalty in Purgatory?

Thanks!

 

[cfauster]

Mike, the Catholics will give better and more complete answers.

Thanks to their help, I now realize that my pre-Vatican II understanding of indulgences was incorrect re. the “days” and “years” thing. My previous post in this thread provides references. Note also that after Vatican II there is no longer an attempt to distinguish the relative magnitudes of various partial indulgences.

Post-Vatican II there remain some of the questions you asked. For example, some acts (indulgenced prayers and other indulgenced actions) earn only partial indulgences whereas other acts earn plenary indulgence. That distinction remains.

 

[Wesrock]

I have a few questions on indulgences, and this seems like the right place:

1. How does the Church determine what acts will lessen the penalty a soul has in Purgatory?
2. How does the Church how much of a penalty is reduced by taking part in an indulgence? For example if making a donation or performing a certain act will reduce a penalty by 300 days, how does it know that the penalty isn’t 200 days or one year?
3. Are there other acts not listed by Church which when performed act like indulgences and reduced one’s penalty in Purgatory?

Thanks!

The Church no longer uses that type of scale in determining the value of indulgences, though that is not to say it was wrong. Anyway, it’s not that indulgences existed “out there” and the Church found them and determined their worth. The Church considers it within its authority to set what indulgences will be granted for and what type of penance it is equivalent to. That is, the Church doesn’t claim to have “discovered” indulgences, it claims the authority to set them as part of its power of binding and loosing of sins granted by Christ and it’s responsibility for setting proper penances for sins due to a priest/Bishop/the Church’s own judgement about what is appropriate. The Church was entrusted with this responsibility in handling the merits of Christ (infinite) and the saints (finite) and given leeway to make its own judgement about binding and loosing, about forgiving sins and retaining them, in a manner that brings people closer to God.

I should be clear that the Church distinguishes between the guilt of sin and the discipline due for sin. As a parent, I can forgive my child for the wrongs they do, but I may still discipline them as it’s due and in order to help form them into a better person. The paragraph above kind of blurs the line between the two. Indulgences don’t absolve any guilt. They can only remit discipline due to sins in which guilt has already been forgiven. Also, they can’t be applied to the future. Hypothetically, let’s say I’ve ‘earned’ 300 days of penance for my sins and I go to Confession and have the guilt absolved. I still need to do that penance or have it remitted. I then earn an indulgence of 500 days of penance to be applied against the 300 due. The remaining 200 are lost. If I sin again, that 200 is gone. New discipline or a remission of the discipline is needed. Now, this is hypothetical, a gross oversimplification, and the Church doesn’t count things in days anymore. It’s just meant as a little illustration.

And as one last addendum, earning or meriting anything is only possible in and through Christ. It’s really allowing him to act through me. I’ve no merit due to me apart from Christ. While we do have a role in merit, it’s only because God has chosen to associate with us and ultimately God is primarily responsible as the first actor, not me.

Sorry for the rambling answer!

Also, ohr suffering and penances on Earth can help account for discipline, too. Martyrs, in dying for their faith, are (someone correct me if I’m wrong) considered purified by their martyrdom and don’t need purgatory. So are other forms of penance and suffering.

But indulgences for the remission of any unaccounted for discipline is a different thing and entirely up to the Church. There are not hidden ones. There is actually doing penance and then having that penance/discipline/punishment remitted through an indulgence. The latter is up to the Church.