CCC 1498 indulgences.

[I_Leatherman]

You have to establish that the power of binding and loosing applies to this particular kind of legal pronouncement

He placed No Boundaries on His power of binding and loosing…it was of the Apostles choosing.

You do not in fact believe that every decision taken by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is ratified in heaven.

The Church can bind on earth and it *will *be bound in heaven - indulgences *are *bound on earth [excuse the pun]. Not every decision taken by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is de fide, but this particular one is considered so by the Church.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

is the message I’m hearing from yourself and Marty.

Please don’t insult Edwin by putting he and I in the same position.
He and I disagree on most everything, and he has the ability to defend his view from more than scripture, my shortcoming of the makings of the CC is quite apparent in this thread, hence the reason I’ve tried to stick with scripture and when I haven’t I look quite foolish. Edwin on the contrary, though I disagre with him alot can always back his position a number of ways, and I appreciate that as it aids in my learning process.

 

[Contarini]

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

Chuck

Why would it?

There is no way that the statement “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” can be taken literally and withough qualification. Catholics do not in fact think this. They do not think that every time a priest absolves someone the person is forgiven. They do not think that anyone cursed by the Church is cursed by God. They restrict very carefully just how the power to bind and loose actually works.

Edwin

 

[YinYangMom]

No one has mentioned yet that Jesus died on the cross so that man could be saved - specifically by opening the gates of heaven to us. He had to die in order to descend into Hell to proclaim the good news and raise those souls who had been waiting all that time and who accepted Him at that point into heaven. Yes, Jesus died for our sins, namely original sin, so that we could be reborn in His name from that point forward through the sacrament of baptism. Maybe no one has mentioned it because I’m way off the mark. If I am feel free to set me straight, but this has been my understanding of Jesus’ sacrifce in addition to what everyone else here has already noted.

As humans we continue to sin against God even after we are washed cleaned at baptism. Those sins are our own, not that of Adam and Eve or our forefathers, thus requires our participation to effectively atone for them. Throughout scripture God has required atonement for offenses against Him. I don’t understand the concept that His death atones for all the sins we continue to commit and will continue to commit until He comes again to judge us. Especially since before He ascended He gave the power to bind and loosen to the apostles - my understanding is specifically so we wouldn’t have to wait until the end of time to find out whether or not we would be forgiven. What a gift of peace Reconciliation is!! When He breathed upon him that wasn’t symbolic, that was real.

Indulgences are ways Jesus, in his His unfathomable mercy, enables us to have the effects of our own sins removed while we’re still alive. Keep in mind, we don’t remove the effects. The priest doesn’t remove the effects. The bishops and the popes don’t remove the effects. JESUS is the only one who removes the effects thru his mercy because we not only ask Him to do so, for ourselves or for the souls of our deceased loved ones (familiar or stranger), but because we promise to do our part in showing Him how sincere we are in our petitions to him through our actions.

That these actions are outward signs of our pleading for Christ’s mercy upon our souls and those of others should not disturb any Christian. There are so many examples of how Jesus went out of his way to exhibit gestures and signs of His mercy, and how God’s faithful sought His mercy in the Old Testament. As with the woman who merely touched the hem of his tunic to be healed, and the centurian who rode to ask Jesus to heal his child, Jesus didn’t have to do anything but will it to be done and it was so. Yet He allowed himself to be baptized by John, he used spit and mud on the blind person, He even had Peter profess his love for Jesus three times to counter the three times he had previously denied Him. Jesus knew Peter loved Him, but He had Peter profess it verbally - it was an outward sign He required Peter to make so that Peter knew without a doubt that he was loved by Jesus, despite having hurt Jesus so deeply earlier.

Jesus continues to define the outward signs He offers to us by which we can find peace in His mercy. He defines those specific actions (conditions) through His body, the Church. He is the Head, the Church is His body. That the Spirit revealed to the Church leaders the means by which the mercy of Jesus could be effectively distributed throughout time should be no stumbling block for any faithful Christian once they recognize the Head cannot be separated from the Body and together they are One.

This is the same Spirit who, at Pentecost, revealed to the apostles all they would need to know in order to preserve, protect and share God’s plan of salvation for mankind through the Church He established for all time. Remember that until Pentecost the apostles were not able to fully comprehend all that they had experienced in Jesus’ presence, let alone how what He said and did would affect every human being born into this world between then and the time that Jesus would come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Remember also, that the bible specifically notes that only a portion of Jesus’ words and deeds were recorded in writing because there would not be enough room to record everything, so we know, without a doubt, that the apostles knew much more than what has been recorded in scripture and that they have passed on what they know through oral and written Tradition, including the powers granted unto them by the Holy Spirit via apostolic succession.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Myfavouritemartin

Both of you are terribly sensitive…:yawn:
Back to the topic then.
Abuses of indulgences. Can a ‘bad’ Pope declare a new and corrupt doctrine to be infallible. And would such a doctrine be binding.
No.
"The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull “Unigenitus”, published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343: “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.”

Is there anything mercenary sounding in that text. Assuming for a moment that a Pope cannot declare a corrupt doctrine then there can be no problem with the doctrine.
How later individuals either within the Church or pretending to represent the Church abuse the doctrine does not detract from the validity of the doctrine itself.
Obviously, an abuse of an indulgence is an abuse and has always been resisted. Does a fake indulgence do what it says on the tin? Obviously no.

 

[YinYangMom]

There is no way that the statement “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” can be taken literally and withough qualification.

Why not? Jesus said those words specifically. Who are we to second guess His specific directive?

Catholics do not in fact think this. They do not think that every time a priest absolves someone the person is forgiven.

We don’t think that. We know it. IF we repent with a contrite heart and the priest absolves us of our sins we know without a doubt that our sins have been forgiven by Jesus Christ Himself.

They do not think that anyone cursed by the Church is cursed by God.

We don’t think anyone is cursed by the Church. If anyone is ‘cursed’, by which you mean, a sin is **not **absolved, then we bring that ‘curse’ upon ourselves. The Church doesn’t bring it upon us. But certainly, if a priest were ever to not say the words of absolution after a Catholic has confessed to him, they’d most certainly believe their sin is not forgiven. They know they are not cursed, of course, just that they’d best get down on their knees to seek guidance from the Spirit on what it is they need to do to truly have a contrite heart before approaching the confessional again for that offense.

They restrict very carefully just how the power to bind and loose actually works.

Edwin

They are, indeed, very careful.

 

[Lrning]

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

Indulgences have nothing to do with salvation. Indulgences are for temporal punishments, not eternal punishments. Indulgences can only be granted for sins that have already been forgiven, so those sins no longer have eternal punishments attached to them.

 

[Contarini]

We don’t think that. We know it. IF we repent with a contrite heart and the priest absolves us of our sins we know without a doubt that our sins have been forgiven by Jesus Christ Himself.

Exactly. But if the priest is wrong in thinking the person contrite, or (God forbid, but it happens) corruptly absolves someone who is not contrite, then the person is not forgiven.

You introduce incredible qualifications and don’t even notice it. Your “IF” makes my point for me.

We don’t think anyone is cursed by the Church. .

I was thinking of such things as the medieval formula for anathema, as reported in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

Now I am not criticizing the Church for using such a formula at all. In certain circumstances it might be appropriate. But it could be pronounced mistakenly. That is what I am saying.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Both of you are terribly sensitive…:yawn:

Right! I’ve posted over 1200 times at a place where my POV is practically looked at as satanic from the feed back I get…I am real sensitive…

 

[Contarini]

Both of you are terribly sensitive…:yawn:
Back to the topic then.
Abuses of indulgences. Can a ‘bad’ Pope declare a new and corrupt doctrine to be infallible. And would such a doctrine be binding.
No.
"The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull “Unigenitus”, published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343: “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.”

Is there anything mercenary sounding in that text. Assuming for a moment that a Pope cannot declare a corrupt doctrine then there can be no problem with the doctrine.
How later individuals either within the Church or pretending to represent the Church abuse the doctrine does not detract from the validity of the doctrine itself.
Obviously, an abuse of an indulgence is an abuse and has always been resisted.

There has always been someone, somewhere who resisted it, no doubt. That person was not always the Pope.

Does a fake indulgence do what it says on the tin? Obviously no.

That is my point. Clearly then you do not in fact think that indulgences are an instance of “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” I am not talking about the doctrine (obviously the point of this thread is that I disagree with the doctrine, but that’s not my point here). I am talking about the specific declarations that if you do X you will get an indulgence.

Edwin

 

[I_Leatherman]

That is my point. Clearly then you do not in fact think that indulgences are an instance of “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” I am not talking about the doctrine (obviously the point of this thread is that I disagree with the doctrine, but that’s not my point here). I am talking about the specific declarations that if you do X you will get an indulgence.

Edwin

The operative word being ‘fake’, ‘purchased’ indulgences where the person had no intention of fulfilling himself what the indulgence assumed would be done. I don’t see why an indulgence would’nt be gained no matter the circumstances once it was saught for in good faith. The ultimate grantor of the indulgence sees everything, after all…

Contarini:

There has always been someone, somewhere who resisted it, no doubt. That person was not always the Pope.

I’ll tell you the problem I have with these types of arguments. It assumes that if the intermediary of a gift is evil then the gift itself must be ineffectual.
For an example. God chooses 12 men to represent His foundling Christian Church, and all that that means down through history. One man of the 12, who also represents the Church, sells God for 30 pieces of silver. Therefore the Christian Church must be evil and ineffectual. Obviously not so. The merits of the Church are Gods merits and they do not spoil.

Anyway…
Release from the penalty due to sin is not an extraordinary thing, considering that the Church has been given the power to actually forgive sin.
Sin is removed or forgiven, if you like, in the fullest possible way through the combined forces of absolution and a method of repayment of the temporal cost of sin. It would seem to me an oddly mishappen kind of Mercy that would forgive the guilt of sin, but would then with-hold Mercy when petitioned for release from the temporal punishment due to sin.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I understand indulgences are meant to be a removal of temporal punishment, I still find it denying the all sufficiency of Christ death on the cross, take a look at the following prophesy

bible.oremus.org/?ql=49895403

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I understand indulgences are meant to be a removal of temporal punishment, I still find it denying the all sufficiency of Christ death on the cross, take a look at the following prophesy

bible.oremus.org/?ql=49895403

I really think your church overstepped its bounds on this infallible dogma.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I understand indulgences are meant to be a removal of temporal punishment, I still find it denying the all sufficiency of Christ death on the cross, take a look at the following prophesy.

Its because of Christs death on the cross that mankind, past, present, and future can benefit. If its not possible for a person to benefit and be shown mercy by being pardoned from temporal punishment, in part or in whole, *then *you might find a basis for arguing that Christs sacrifice was insufficient in some way.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I understand indulgences are meant to be a removal of temporal punishment, I still find it denying the all sufficiency of Christ death on the cross, take a look at the following prophesy

Do you have a problem with temporal punishment or indulgences?

 

[heisenburg]

Good Morning Martin…

I’m not entirely sure which you aspect specifically you believe is erroneous at this point, but I will make an attempt to help alleviate your concern.

First, the over reaching issue here appears to be purgatory. Is it real, or is it antithetical. despite all the numerous complicated definitions, from both sides, the actual substance of the matter is far easier (and biblical) to understand. As a protestant, I am certain you believe that once you come to him, you believe one of the three very good analogies occurs. You are either made clean with his Blood, Clothed in a white rob, or hid in Christ.

When you Sin later in life after coming to Him, and you then ask for forgiveness, hopefully you agree he once again freely covers you with his Blood. Still well within the range of Biblical principles.

Now, almost no one will die in a perfect state with a perfectly clean soul. I can try, but I doubt I will. Now, a problem arises. because nothing unclean can enter heaven, if you do die in a state of Grace, but with some level of sin on your soul, are you allowed into heaven?

The answer to this problem is actually very easy. Just as in life, you were covered with his blood, Purgatory in its simplest explanation is literally nothing more than the LAST time it will happen. It is not a place, it is a process, like saying someone is in labor. Just like on Earth, being cleansed by his blood is reserved only for those on the Path to Him. If you are in the State of Purgatory, you are already guaranteed entry into heaven. No one in the state of Purgatory has ever been sent to hell.

Sum up… Purgatory is nothing more than the last time we need to be cleansed by his blood. Don’t know how long it takes, Don’t know if it hurts in a way like how we experience pain. Both are mute points. Purgatory is because of Calvary, not in spite of it. All biblical concepts.

This leads to indulgences. As mentioned, an indulgence is nothing more than an opposite of Sin. It is simply something that pleases God. Remember the Baseball analogy? Well, just like in that case, an indulgence goes to reducing the amount of Temporal punishment associated with a sin. I sin, it has consequences, even if forgiven.

(Quick aside… Some people want to argue that sin has no real temporal consequences, and only spiritual. The easiest way to counter this is by saying look at the universe. It is NOT a perfect place all because of the sin of Adam.)

I want to make something very very clear here. Indulgences have zero effect of salvation. Temporal punishment is NOT the same as eternal punishment. Therefore, verses provided that talk of eternal punishment do not pertain. Just like with the baseball. The sin of breaking the window is forgiven, but the physical consequence of that transgression requires addressing.

Suppose then for a second as a hypothetical, a man dies in Gods grace, and is in the STATE of purgatory. (remember, it is nothing more than the last time He clothes us in a white rob) Also suppose he performed NO indulgences (unlikely if he was a true follower but bare with me) would the fact that he performed no indulgences affect his eternal salvation? Nope… not one bit.

Take the converse. A man dies outside of Gods grace. But spent his entire life performing indulgences (remember, an indulgence is nothing more than an opposite of Sin) will he reach eternal salvation? Nope… not a chance.

In any case… I know it was long winded, but hopefully it will help.

May you be blessed in your journey

In Christ

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How does Romans 6 1-14 align with indulgences?
bible.oremus.org/?ql=49950812

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Do you have a problem with temporal punishment or indulgences?

I think temporal punishment is part of picking up our cross daily, for afterall Paul said we are crucified with Christ did he not, and that we need to die daily to our sins? What’s meant by picking up our cross daily otherwise? I just don’t see how an institution can keep a treasury of merits and offer at will for jobs well done or money given or charities completed…

 

[YinYangMom]

Exactly. But if the priest is wrong in thinking the person contrite, or (God forbid, but it happens) corruptly absolves someone who is not contrite, then the person is not forgiven.

He can’t be wrong. Remember, the priest isn’t the one absolving us, it is the priest 'in persona Christe", thus it is the Holy Spirit doing the work, making the decision, moving the priest to absolve or not absolve.

IF, as you say, has been wrong as you claim has happened, then the person is indeed still forgiven. Any consequence falls on the priest, not on the sinner who came to him in good faith.

You introduce incredible qualifications and don’t even notice it. Your “IF” makes my point for me.

The IF isn’t mine, it is Our Lord’s. If you read any of the passages in scripture where He forgives people of their sins it is because they have approached Him with a contrite heart. He makes it clear that such a heart is a necessity for forgiveness. In the confessional only the sinner and God knows with absolute certainty the sincerity of the plea for forgiveness.

I was thinking of such things as the medieval formula for anathema, as reported in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Ah, I see.
Yes, that is dire language indeed. Do we know how often (if at all) it has been used? I suspect it was used quite a bit around the Reformation and such, but would be surprised to find it has been used twice since pre-Vatican II.

Now I am not criticizing the Church for using such a formula at all. In certain circumstances it might be appropriate. But it could be pronounced mistakenly. That is what I am saying.

Edwin

Well, see, I have faith in the Holy Spirit’s guiding hand in Church matters, particularly with regard to such serious responsibilities handed down to Her. I just dont’ believe the Spirit would allow it to be pronounced mistakenly. If, for whatever reason it is, then I also have faith that the mistake will be corrected in due course of time, or that what appears to be a mistake was really a cross meant for the person to endure in preparing him/her for a serious mission by our Lord. (I think about how Padre Pio was restricted from saying mass all those years). It is not for us to understand the why’s behind God’s plan for each of us, just to trust that He knows best and that He works through His body, the Church.

 

[YinYangMom]

That is my point. Clearly then you do not in fact think that indulgences are an instance of “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” I am not talking about the doctrine (obviously the point of this thread is that I disagree with the doctrine, but that’s not my point here). I am talking about the specific declarations that if you do X you will get an indulgence.

Edwin

The indulgence isn’t part of that binding on earth and in heaven - that pertains to the sacrament of reconciliation when the priest absolved the person of the sin. The indulgence is for partially or completely removing the temporal effects of those sins. Indulgence is not forgiveness/absolution. It’s more about bleaching the stain which was removed.

A story circulating to help explain it has to do with a father and son. The son takes the Lord’s name in vain quite a bit. The father hands the son a hammer and a box of nails, telling him to go out to the fence and pound a nail into in for every time he takes the Lord’s name in vain.

By the end of the week, there are a lot of nails in the fence, but the frequency of the son having to go out there dropped dramatically.

When several weeks without a single nail passed the father then handed the hammer to the son and told him to remove every nail he had put there. A lot of work, indeed. When the son pulled every nail the father asked him to take a good look at the fence and asked if it was the same as before he put the nails in. The son observed it was not, because there were now a lot of holes in the fence in random places. The father explains that is how it is with our words and actions. When we offend someone it hurts that person. We can ask their forgiveness and receive it, but the effect of our offense remains with that person for all time. The anger and pain my be gone, but the memory remains.

Such is the case for temporal effects of our sins on our souls. The sin is removed/forgotten through absolution as though it was never committed (as far as Our Lord’s memory is concerned), but the effect still remains on our soul to be washed clean before we can enter into heaven. We can wash it here on earth or in purgatory, but one way or another it’s got to be washed. Through indulgences we can help those in purgatory wash theirs, too. It’s a beautiful gift we can give to them.

I recall reading somewhere something about hos God’s love is so intense that it brings to light even the slightest mark on us. It was likened to washing whites. As we all know, not all bleaches and washers produce the same results. We can bleach all our whites and hold them up to the light in the house and they appear pure. Take them out into the sunlight and sure enough, a spot or two becomes visible. It was there all along, but we couldn’t see it because of the lighting. In God’s presence all is revealed and we’ve been told through Revelations that only the pure can be in His presence, so there has to be some mechanism for purifying our souls between our death and our reunion with Our Father.