CCC 1498 indulgences.

[heisenburg]

An indulgence an action of charity to remove temporal punishment.

How is that not giving forth a ransom??

A very very simple understanding of an indulgence is simply the opposite of Sin. If something that offends God is a Sin, then something that pleases God is an Indulgence.

That being said, there are several things in scripture that indicate that faith and prayers of one, effect the state of another. Example, In Matthew, the Centurion comes up to Christ and asks him to heal his servant. Christ does NOT say “the servant must ask for help, not you” he Does say, effectively, because of your faith, your servant has been healed.

This is the easiest example to show how the prayers and faith of one effect the state of someone else, regardless of THEIR personal state.

Furthermore, taking your statement to its logical conclusion would mean that we cannot pray for anyone about anything. My Praying that God will be merciful to someone in the state of Purgatory, is no different than me praying for you if you are in Spiritual Dire straits. If the request of a prayer fits within his will, he will have no problem in Granting it. If it is within His will to remove all temporal punishment for a soul in Purgatory because of my prayers, the ultimate reason is still God, not my Prayers.

When you are talking Indulgences for yourself, thats simple. The happier God is with you, the less you need to worry about. Again, an indulgence is simply the opposite of Sin (in very simple terms). If performing Sin increases temporal punishment, then The opposite of that would REDUCE punishment.
(That being said, you can never “do” enough to get into heaven, that is by his Grace alone)

Hope that helps

In Christ

 

[Church_Militant]

An indulgence an action of charity to remove temporal punishment.

How is that not giving forth a ransom??

Where’s your authentic Catholic source for this? I already know that your opinion is inaccurate.

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. [CCC 1471]

How is that not a valid function of binding and loosing?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

That being said, there are several things in scripture that indicate that faith and prayers of one, effect the state of another…

This is the easiest example to show how the prayers and faith of one effect the state of someone else, regardless of THEIR personal state.

This is an obvious given! So why do the indulgence? Why not ceaselessly pray to God? It seems Edwin has it right, it makes everything appear very legalistic, how is it not?

 

[Church_Militant]

This is an obvious given! So why do the indulgence? Why not ceaselessly pray to God? It seems Edwin has it right, it makes everything appear very legalistic, how is it not?

Because the Church has been given this authority by Christ Himself and whichever way it has chosen to administer it is a freedom of form that should not be a problem to the faithful. I have no problem with it because I understand the scriptural basis for it and apppreciate that Our Lord had the compassion to provide it for us through the Church that he founded.

 

[Contarini]

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-

That was before the Resurrection. Jesus did what this Psalm said could not be done.

The real question is: how seriously do you take this, and how seriously do you take the truth that we are members of Christ’s Body? One of the basic problems with Protestantism is the reversion to an Old Testament way of thinking on questions like this. Your citation of Psalm 49 is a case in point.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[heisenburg]

This is an obvious given! So why do the indulgence? Why not ceaselessly pray to God? It seems Edwin has it right, it makes everything appear very legalistic, how is it not?

Forgive me… perhaps you could clarify a little more…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

That was before the Resurrection. Jesus did what this Psalm said could not be done.

The real question is: how seriously do you take this, and how seriously do you take the truth that we are members of Christ’s Body? One of the basic problems with Protestantism is the reversion to an Old Testament way of thinking on questions like this. Your citation of Psalm 49 is a case in point.

In Christ,

Edwin

Psalm 49 is Almighty God speaking,
what are you saying Edwin that God contradicted himself in bringing forth the Messiah?
Jesus made a change to the way we understand the Old Testament.
He taught us that we could always live with God. We call this “everlasting life”. It starts with the indwelling of the HS.

And as far as Christ body, even though the term body indicates a physical form…I clearly see it different than the institution that Anglicans and Catholic and orthodox see it. But that’s another thread

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Having been made “in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), Christ was capable of both representing humanity before God and physically dying (Hebrews 2:14-17). Since He was sinless, His life was an acceptable sacrifice (1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). Our Redeemer. “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain” (Revelation 5:12).

 

[Contarini]

Psalm 49 is Almighty God speaking,

In the sense that it’s divinely inspired, sure. But not in the literary sense–the “I” of the poem is not God but a human being who is expressing wisdom “on the harp.”

what are you saying Edwin that God contradicted himself in bringing forth the Messiah?

No. What Psalm 49 says is true. Everyone dies. But that is not, as the human author of Psalm 49 presumably thought, the final word.

Jesus made a change to the way we understand the Old Testament.
He taught us that we could always live with God.

But people already knew this–at least the Pharisees did. The Sadducees, because of their belief in “Sola Scriptura,” rejected this tradition!

In fact, Jewish belief was more specific than you give them credit–not just "living with God’ but the resurrection of the Body.

The difference Jesus made was that in Jesus the resurrection has already started to happen. And as we are incorporated into His Body by the work of the Holy Spirit, we share in that resurrection.

Jesus has paid the ransom that Psalm 49 declares to be impossible. And as members of Christ’s body it is our task to ransom others. Or more correctly, Christ ransoms them through us. That is why your use of Psalm 49 fails.

And as far as Christ body, even though the term body indicates a physical form…I clearly see it different than the institution that Anglicans and Catholic and orthodox see it. But that’s another thread

You’re vague as to what you think the view is with which you disagree, so I don’t know if it’s relevant or not!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[I_Leatherman]

Originally Posted by Contarini
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?

Nothing questionable about it.
You display no faith whatsoever in Christ every time you deny His promise to His Church. His Church, remember that, you do not get to decide which of his promises actually work or not.
He said, once again, ;

‘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.’

Christ placed no limit or boundaries on His promise, as you are intent on doing.
Either you believe Him or you do not.
I could say that your abuse of His promise is more like the Ancient Jewish leaders abuse of power when they applied too great a burden on their people and themselves neither entering nor allowing anyone else to enter.

The Catholic Church follows Christ in His correction of this type of abuse by allowing the penalty of sin as well as the guilt of sin to be removed from the sinner. This is a generous Christ-like approach to the use of power Christ gave to His Church.

‘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.’


Myfavoritemartin:

Originally Posted by I Leatherman
But after attaching an indulgence, to reading the Bible or whatever, yes it does have an effect.
Myfavoritemartin:

How?

You can read all about it in your Bible.

St.Paul : “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”

"In the case of the incest man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many” and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”
St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority – “in the person of Christ.” "
NA.

An indulgence is a release of the sinner from the fetters of punishment by an exercise of the Church’s authority - “in the person of Christ”.

The Church, like St.Paul, can release a sinner from punishment.
But also, an important concept of an indulgences is applying to a person satisfaction performed by others.

These are an example of those works of St.Paul:

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church,”
Myfavoritemartin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Leatherman
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?

Because we cannot know how much remains for you to suffer when you are in purgatory. An indulgence for the souls in purgatory is then in the form of a petition to God to accept works of satisfaction to shorten their sufferings, those who are also members of the Church [like St.Pauls work, above].
While the soul is on earth it is free to strive to free itself and others from the penalty of sin.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Forgive me… perhaps you could clarify a little more…

Indulgences seem to allow for the theology of working your way to a secure salvation…Stock piling good works.

 

[heisenburg]

Indulgences seem to allow for the theology of working your way to a secure salvation…Stock piling good works.

Indulgences are in no way designed to secure your salvation. They were never meant as such, and should not be viewed as such. Some very corrupt people in the past did try and use a misunderstood version to make a buck (and was one of the legitimated complaints of Martin Luther) that being said, the Church has never taught that indulgences were meant to save someone.

As mentioned, and indulgence is merely the opposite of a sin. It is something that Pleases God. When you openly read the bible, you perform an indulgence (you please God). Every time you do something that God wants, you please him. It is not meant as a substitute for Christ, it is more an obedience to Christ.

Look at it from a second way.
You break your neighbors window with a baseball. You immediately go yo your neighbor and apologize. The neighbor goes… Well, its ok, i forgive you, but you need to pay for the window. However you then proceed to do yard work for the person for a few days. The Neighbor goes, well… I appreciate you doing that so instead of paying me 50 bucks, just pay me 40. You weren’t relieved of the consequences of the sin, and indulgences help alleviate some of the repercussions of that sin, but you were relieved of the Sin itself when the Neighbor forgave you.

Analogies with holes, but helpful analogies all the same

Again though… you CANNOT use indulgences as a second way into heaven. It will never work. There is only one way to God and that is through Christ.

In Christ

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You display no faith whatsoever in Christ every time you deny His promise to His Church. His Church, remember that, you do not get to decide which of his promises actually work or not.
He said, once again, ;

.

I take offense to the above comment. Your version of HIS church and mine differ drastically.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I take offense to the above comment. Your version of HIS church and mine differ drastically.

It is true.
You do not believe Him when He said '…‘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.’
You could’nt be offended by that statement if you believed what He said.

 

[Contarini]

It is true.
You do not believe Him when He said '…‘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.’
You could’nt be offended by that statement if you believed what He said.

This is absurd. You do not in fact believe that every decision taken by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is ratified in heaven. You believe that it is possible for them to make mistakes in certain areas. That being the case, you cannot simply use this text as a bludgeon. You are using Scripture the way Protestant fundamentalists do–that is to say, very badly. You have to establish that the power of binding and loosing applies to this particular kind of legal pronouncement–and obviously you cannot do this from Scripture alone. So stop trying!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[I_Leatherman]

And you and Martin are doing the opposite.
Thats the point.

 

[Contarini]

And you and Martin are doing the opposite.
Thats the point.

Opposite of what? What point?

Edwin

 

[I_Leatherman]

stop trying

is the message I’m hearing from yourself and Marty.
Thats the ‘opposite’ bit; except that ye’re not offering anything to support that opposite message, thats the point bit, no support for your opposite view.
I’ve given ye support for the Catholic view.
I’ve given ye the theory, the practice, and the precedent in Scripture, not to mention God speaking those words to the Apostles ‘…whatever ye bind…’.
For me to ‘stop trying’ you have to prove that God did not mean what He said. And thats not going to be easy!

 

[Contarini]

is the message I’m hearing from yourself and Marty.
Thats the ‘opposite’ bit; except that ye’re not offering anything to support that opposite message, thats the point bit, no support for your opposite view.
I’ve given ye support for the Catholic view.
I’ve given ye the theory, the practice, and the precedent in Scripture, not to mention God speaking those words to the Apostles ‘…whatever ye bind…’.
For me to ‘stop trying’ you have to prove that God did not mean what He said. And thats not going to be easy!

No, you haven’t shown any support for the particular thing I’m criticizing, except for citing the power of binding and loosing. You have produced no evidence showing that this gives the Pope the power to attach a particular reward to a good deed over and beyond the reward the deed carries with it already. That is what I am objecting to. Please distinguish my position from martin’s.

My argument is a form of Ockham’s razor, I suppose. If certain things bring us closer to God and decrease our attachment to sin, then while it’s wonderful for the Church to point them out to us, it seems superfluous for the Church to attach some extra reward on top of this.

Here is a more specific criticism:

Either indulgences are fallible or infallible. If they are fallible, then your Scriptural argument fails, and in fact we do not know for sure that a given action will produce exactly the effect claimed by the Church. But if they are infallible, then for one thing you have to defend even manifestly corrupt indulgences, such as those that prompted the 95 Theses. You have to say that when someone bought (yes, bought) an indulgences according to the specifications of Pope Leo and Archbishop Albert, God would honor that and reduce the person’s temporal punishment (or more likely that of the person in purgatory for whom the indulgence was obtained). Are you really willing to defend this proposition?

This is very different from the alleged infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas. A dogmatic definition simply declares something to be the case that was always the case. Indulgences purportedly change reality in a precise, legally defined way, at the discretion of the Pope.

Beyond the argument I have just made, I’m not sure it’s worthwhile trying to prove this to be mistaken. To me it seems self-evidently wrong and corrupt. If you don’t see it this way, I guess we’ll agree to disagree. But do not claim that you have provided any Biblical foundation for this notion. You haven’t. You can’t just cite the power of binding and loosing and apply it to anything you choose. We know that not all actions of the Church’s leaders are endorsed by God, so you have to make a specific case for each specific kind of actions.

Oh, and the sinful man in Corinth had, as you note, been excommunicated. That is what St. Paul is talking about–readmission to the Church, not the remission of “temporal punishment” imposed by God.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[clmowry]

So why wouldn’t the power to bind and loose extend to purgatory?

Chuck

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).