CCC 1498 indulgences.

[Zooey]

I don’t think indulgences do deny the atonement. However, that doesn’t make them a correct or useful “mechanism.” I think that the notion of temporal punishment as a legal debt is flawed from the start. The only “temporal punishment” is the pain involved in detaching ourselves from sin. If indulgences are simply declarations by the Church that certain actions will (if done with the right intention) help detach ourselves from sin, I have no problem with them. But this is clearly not how they were traditionally regarded.
Edwin

This is kind of where I am on this subject…The idea of an indulgence, per se, doesn’t bother me. Its when the subject of legal debt comes up, that I start getting confused.

You don’t think that indulgences negate the all-sufficiency of the cross? It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God. I am not saying that sins have consequences and punishments. I am saying that being made right with God is not by our suffering, but by Christ’s.

I can’t see how you can argue this. The suffering, death, & resurrection of Christ are the fountain from which the indulgences flow.
Is anyone saying that our suffering is somehow more potent than that of Christ?? Because I’m sure not hearing that.

“Surely our griefs** He Himself bore**, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. **But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him,” **(Isaiah 53:4-6).

Yes, of course. But what about someone who bears the scars of sins previous to conversion?? Are they supposed to somehow miraculously disappear??? That’s treading awfully close to the health & wealth (so-called) “gospel”… I dunno. I don’t see where you’re going with this…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Just a curious question, do we ever see our Savior speaking or advocating indulgences?

I was reading how a bishop granted plenary and partial indulgences for praying the divine mercy, how exactly does he do it and what actual benefit arises from such follow through?

 

[davidv]

Just a curious question, do we ever see our Savior speaking or advocating indulgences?

I was reading how a bishop granted plenary and partial indulgences for praying the divine mercy, how exactly does he do it and what actual benefit arises from such follow through?

See this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20020629_decree-ii_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

Why does it seem catholocism constantly strives to find ways to present outward signs for the inward state of the individual believer?

We’re an Incarnational people

And we’re a social people

 

[Genesis315]

Just a curious question, do we ever see our Savior speaking or advocating indulgences

It’s the binding and loosing power he gives to Peter and the Apostles. St. Paul grants an indulgence to the incestuous man

 

[myfavoritmartin]

See this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20020629_decree-ii_en.html

That’s where I read that from…It confuses my pea sized brain

 

[davidv]

That’s where I read that from…It confuses my pea sized brain

What specifically in it is confusing?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What specifically in it is confusing?

Is it forgiveness people are buying or earning?

Wouldn’t that be cause to boast which is contrary to Romans 4?

 

[I_Leatherman]

Is it forgiveness people are buying or earning?

Wouldn’t that be cause to boast which is contrary to Romans 4?

Forgiveness of what from whom?

 

[I_Leatherman]

…They are, or traditionally were, a form of legal declaration. That is what is problematic about them.

Edwin

Can you be even more specific?

 

[Contarini]

Can you be even more specific?

I think I made my point clear above, and at some point someone ought to try to address it! But here is one more try:

One of the 19th-century Popes (Leo X, I think) gave an indulgence for reading the Bible. If this is simply a declaration of something that was always the case–that if a person reads the Bible with a pious heart, it will help counteract the effects of sin and will bring the person closer to God–then that’s unobjectionable. But if Catholics are required to believe that after Pope Leo’s declaration reading the Bible had some effect on one’s temporal punishment that it didn’t have before, then that is a “legal declaration” and the notion is theologically questionable.

In other words, I believe Luther was right in the 95 Theses. The Church has the right to make declarations about matters of church discipline–to decide when someone should be excommunicated, for instance. But the Church does not have legal power over what happens in purgatory, power that can be exercised at the Church’s discretion. That notion reflects an amoral, legalistic view of the Christian life which is at the heart of most of what is wrong with both Catholicism and Protestantism. This is where the Orthodox critique of Western Christianity is most telling (not that the Orthodox don’t have their own problems).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[PaulGH]

Hi Myfavoritmartin,

I’m coming in late to this thread, but I just wanted to make a quick suggestion to respond to your perception that indulgences must take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. If you have a chance, I would recommend that you pick up a copy of a book called “The Salvation Controversy” by James Akin. (He goes by Jimmy Akin now, but at the time the book was published, he was known as James.) This short book gives a clear and concise explanation, from a Catholic perspective, of many of the issues that are in dispute between Catholics and Protestants in the area of salvation, including indulgences.

Paul

 

[I_Leatherman]

One of the 19th-century Popes (Leo X, I think) gave an indulgence for reading the Bible. If this is simply a declaration of something that was always the case–that if a person reads the Bible with a pious heart, it will help counteract the effects of sin and will bring the person closer to God–then that’s unobjectionable.

No-one would argue but that that pious practice is beneficial…

But if Catholics are required to believe that after Pope Leo’s declaration reading the Bible had some effect on one’s temporal punishment that it didn’t have before, then that is a “legal declaration” and the notion is theologically questionable.

[You mean it ‘**can’ have some effect, depending on whether or not you meet the requirements]

And…

Yes, Catholics are required to believe it, after all indulgences are De Fide.
Whether or not reading the Bible had an effect on one’s temporal punishment before, no-one can say they really know, I suppose.
But after attaching an indulgence, to reading the Bible or whatever, yes it does have an effect. Precisely in the same way that Christ promised His Apostles that ‘Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;…’ that this actually released the person from sin, then in the same way Christ gave the ‘power of the Keys’, ‘And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ this too actually has its effect. If Christ grants His Church the power to forgive sins, and have it ratified in heaven He equally here allows His Church to release or ease the penalty, - according to Christ’s own words that action too, will be ratified in heaven.

… The Church has the right to make declarations about matters of church discipline–to decide when someone should be excommunicated, for instance. But the Church does not have legal power over what happens in purgatory,
In Christ,

Edwin

The Church does not have, nor does it claim, jurisdiction over the dead.
You cannot get an indulgence for a soul in purgatory, or to release a soul from purgatory.
Instead of the indulgence-type for the living, the Church can petition God to accept works of satisfaction to shorten a souls suffering in purgatory.

 

[davidv]

Is it forgiveness people are buying or earning?

Wouldn’t that be cause to boast which is contrary to Romans 4?

It is neither. It is like getting a suspended sentence after one has been convicted of a crime.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Is it forgiveness people are buying or earning?

Wouldn’t that be cause to boast which is contrary to Romans 4?

As you know, indulgences don’t forgive sins.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think I made my point clear above, and at some point someone ought to try to address it! But here is one more try:

One of the 19th-century Popes (Leo X, I think) gave an indulgence for reading the Bible. If this is simply a declaration of something that was always the case–that if a person reads the Bible with a pious heart, it will help counteract the effects of sin and will bring the person closer to God–then that’s unobjectionable. But if Catholics are required to believe that after Pope Leo’s declaration reading the Bible had some effect on one’s temporal punishment that it didn’t have before, then that is a “legal declaration” and the notion is theologically questionable.

In other words, I believe Luther was right in the 95 Theses. The Church has the right to make declarations about matters of church discipline–to decide when someone should be excommunicated, for instance. But the Church does not have legal power over what happens in purgatory, power that can be exercised at the Church’s discretion.

That notion reflects an amoral, legalistic view of the Christian life which is at the heart of most of what is wrong with both Catholicism and Protestantism. This is where the Orthodox critique of Western Christianity is most telling (not that the Orthodox don’t have their own problems).

In Christ,

EdwinA concise presentation Edwin, except for one very important thing that you seem to have overlooked.

Matthew 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." and 18:18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You err (scripturally) in asserting that the Church does not have legal power over what happens in Purgatory. Luther was wrong and there is nothing theologically questionable about that.
Pax tecum,

 

[myfavoritmartin]

But if Catholics are required to believe that after Pope Leo’s declaration reading the Bible had some effect on one’s temporal punishment that it didn’t have before, then that is a “legal declaration” and the notion is theologically questionable.

It’s these types of theological stances that sometimes make me wonder if the CC believes our God is a living God, a church controlling temporal punishment? is our God not omnipotent?

But after attaching an indulgence, to reading the Bible or whatever, yes it does have an effect.

How?

The Church does not have, nor does it claim, jurisdiction over the dead.
You cannot get an indulgence for a soul in purgatory, or to release a soul from purgatory.

So are the souls of the living different from those in purgatory, why the line?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

7 No man can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for him-

8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough-

 

[Church_Militant]

7 No man can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for him-

8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough-

Where is there anything is Catholic teaching on Purgatory that even remotely implies that we believe that we do that?

Please show me a authentic Catholic teaching to this effect, or admit that you have used an out of context passage of scripture to imply something that is not a Catholic belief.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Where is there anything is Catholic teaching on Purgatory that even remotely implies that we believe that we do that?

Please show me a authentic Catholic teaching to this effect, or admit that you have used an out of context passage of scripture to imply something that is not a Catholic belief.

An indulgence an action of charity to remove temporal punishment.

How is that not giving forth a ransom??