Could you explain indulgencies - simply please!

[Rob_s_Wife]

I am not denying ANY church teachings - just asking for clarification on those tachings in relation to indulgencies.

1 John4:1***“1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”***
Do you want legions of non-thinking, blind followers who buy whatever someone in a robe tells them?Did Christ tell Thomas to shut up and simply accept His ressurrection? No, he demonstrated his wounds, let him touch them. He did not say “DO NOT QUESTION, THOMAS!”
"Jesus said to him, “Have you come to me believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20: 29) Obviously it would have been better if Thomas had blindly believe in Him.
Message- “Some abuses you have to be a good little soldier and shut up and accept, because we said so, and we declare we cannot be wrong on this one.” Robs wife, question them. Test the spirits.
No I have not questioned the use of indulgencies - I have questioned what they are and how they are to used (or not) in the Church. 2 separate issues here.
Its also curious to note that nobody has mentioned in this thread that these “indulgences” were in fact “sold” during the time of Luther
The Church was the charitable fund and giving to the Church is always a good thing - but that doesn’t buy your way into heaven any more than tithing does. Alms would be the equal to giving a homeless shelter money to run a soup kitchen - good, but doesn’t equal buying the forgiveness of your sins. Indulgence is more of personal act of a particuliarly difficult penance in reparation for sin.

The issue of selling indulgencies was that people were told they could not gain forgiveness unless tthey paid for it - a horrible err on the part of some priest/men (not all priest were like that). The truth is that that wasn’t possible though. Sins are forgiven by virtue of the repentant soul - which money can not buy. Therefore it is true that you can’t “buy” an indulgence.
Yet they still say "One never could “buy” indulgences."
catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

Sadly, Rob’s Wife, many here react the same way to your question in the same way the church of that time treated Luther.
“Shut up. Don’t question. Accept it… or be excommunicated.”
No one has said that to me. I think the concern was that I was saying the church is wrong to have indulgencies - which I have not and will not do.

So we have now-admitted abuses, and a man who questioned them (Martin Luther) at that time.
**Luther didn’t question anything - he threw down a gauntlet and then threw a fit when he didn’t get his way immediately. He then walk away from his faith in the church (makes one wonder how much faith he had to begin with?) made up his mind as to what he wanted and then left to make his own church. **

But he didn’t play the role of a “Good little Catholic Soldier” and blindly accept what he was told. This whole mess could have been easily corrected with some discernment by both parties involved.
One could argue that from the catholic side too…
Scripture doesn’t support that notion. All fall short of the glory of God. We are all sinners.
Never denied that - but the Holy Spirit does work in the Church to achieve His works and that is supported by the bible.

Remember- the Antichrist will come someday. He will demand that people not question his doctrines either.
Yes, he just might demand that - but the Catholic church is not doing that.
Love to you all.

By the way, we will going on a statehood pilgrimage that grants a plenary indulgence over the summer. Looking forward to the experience!

And this fall we will be entering into the middle ages, Reformation and all - I’ll got a few points to ponder over in the lesson planning now…

Thank you every one for your responses.

 

[JackmanUSC]

Look, saying that something is not valid because of abuses is plain ignorant. I could go out form a church and baptise people in malt liquer, or make people pay to get baptised. Does that mean the whole practice of Baptism is therefore dismissed because of an abuse? Back in those days abuses took alot longer to get to Rome than now, remember it was the middle ages. Just because in the past certain individuals abused a practice does not mean the practice as a whole is faulty. And remember, indulgences don’t guarantee you Salvation, they just relieve temporal punishment for those not condemned to hell.

 

[ScottH]

JackmanUSC:

Look, saying that something is not valid because of abuses is plain ignorant. I could go out form a church and baptise people in malt liquer, or make people pay to get baptised. Does that mean the whole practice of Baptism is therefore dismissed because of an abuse? Back in those days abuses took alot longer to get to Rome than now, remember it was the middle ages. Just because in the past certain individuals abused a practice does not mean the practice as a whole is faulty. And remember, indulgences don’t guarantee you Salvation, they just relieve temporal punishment for those not condemned to hell.

No, nobody is saying that you cut something out if its something that can and has been abused. But you don’t excommunicate the person who called the abuse to your attention and/or try to silence them for fear that the bigger organization must always appear “perfect” or “infallable.”

Nor do you rebuke someone for questions.

 

[JackmanUSC]

Yes, that particular instance was not what I think many, including Luther wanted. In fact I am sure Luther, never wanted schism and I do blame some on both sides for the outcome. Blame the sins of men for the tears of the Church.

 

[Tietjen]

Rob's Wife:

You assume I’m choosing to not believe because I’m asking questions? You assume if I decide not to do something that I think the church is wrong to teach it? Neither of which is the case by the way.

For example the church teaches having the traditional latin mass is okay - does that mean if I go to a V2 mass I think the church is wrong to okay the latin mass? Absolutely not! It is not a requirment of being catholic to go to a latin mass - contrary to what some in CA might think. That’s why I gave the example of the True Presence. Everyone must believe and accept that as fact to be Catholic. Yes, there are issues of absolute in the church which every catholic must believe and live according to. My question was if indulgencies was one of those items - not whether it is a teaching that is wrong.

I guess it upset me to be called a heretic and a cafeteria catholic just for asking questions about a particuliar point of doctrine - would you have been so harsh to a prot asking these questions?

Okay, I apologize for assuming that you were having trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on Indulgences. I assumed this because in none of your posts did you mention that you did accept the Church’s position. You simply referred to them as being “brownie points” and questioned where the source for the Church’s doctrine on indulgences came from. So, maybe wrongfully so, I viewed the dots and connected them without having you supply me with all the dots. That was wrong of me. Incidentally, I did not say that you WERE a cafeteria Catholic. What I said is that PEOPLE who pick and choose those things that they want to believe from Church doctrine are cafeteria Catholics. Therefore, if you are saying that you are not one of those people, the term does not apply to you and you should not take offense.
In addition, so that you and I are on the same page, I never said that attending a Latin Mass was against Vatican II. It is not and Latin Masses ARE allowed under Vatican II so this is not an issue. It comes down to this; the Church believes and teaches that indulgences exist. Catholics accept Church doctrine. Those that deny what the Church instructs are outside the Church. They may not believe that they are and they may see themselves as being more spiritually in tune with God’s will than the 2000+ year old Church, but they are wrong. It is as simple as that.
God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the Enchiridion of Indulgences. It lists everything tht carries with it an indulgence as well as other useful info.

www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/The.Enchiridion.of.Indulgences.pdf

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Tietjen:

Okay, I apologize for assuming that you were having trouble accepting the Church’s teaching on Indulgences. I assumed this because in none of your posts did you mention that you did accept the Church’s position. You simply referred to them as being “brownie points” and questioned where the source for the Church’s doctrine on indulgences came from.
**Apology forgiven! It appears the wording of my posts was the issue, which I hoped it was but couldn’t figure out where/how. My husband is not Catholic and it was a result of a conversatin with him about some lessons plans I’m working on for next year that led me post this topic. He is the one to be blamed for the “brownie point” reference - which he is now calling the “Get Out of Purgatory Earlier Card” after we were discussing this over American History Monopoly last night. **
So, maybe wrongfully so, I viewed the dots and connected them without having you supply me with all the dots. That was wrong of me. Incidentally, I did not say that you WERE a cafeteria Catholic. What I said is that PEOPLE who pick and choose those things that they want to believe from Church doctrine are cafeteria Catholics. Therefore, if you are saying that you are not one of those people, the term does not apply to you and you should not take offense.
None taken any longer - thank you for settling my ruffled feathers though.
In addition, so that you and I are on the same page, I never said that attending a Latin Mass was against Vatican II.
**Oh no let’s not go there! I was only using that as a neutral example and it in no way had anything to do with any other post on this topic. **
Catholics accept Church doctrine. Those that deny **(All posters please note he said DENY not question - 2 very different things!) **what the Church instructs are outside the Church. They may not believe that they are and they may see themselves as being more spiritually in tune with God’s will than the 2000+ year old Church, but they are wrong. It is as simple as that. Amen and I agree!

Thank you & God Bless!

 

[Tietjen]

ScottH:

Rob’s wife is acting biblically-
1 John4:1
“1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Let’s keep reading shall we:
1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6 We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.
Therefore, what are we actually talking about here? The verse YOU choose to take out of context actually IS saying that we should be listening to the Church, which God created. We are to follow Her doctrines and not those of man. It was a good try though.

ScottH:

Do you want legions of non-thinking, blind followers who buy whatever someone in a robe tells them?

Not “someone in a robe,” the Church; a “robe” means nothing. It is the one who wears the robe that I am talking about.

ScottH:

However- from your own site:
“Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false…
Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them.”

Other than helping to prove the Church’s position on indulgences, what is your point here?

ScottH:

So, lets review. What do you have? A teaching that is “abused”, yet the followers of Catholcism are not at liberty to disbelieve and or question them. So certain abused doctrines cannot be disputed because the doctrine has been deemed by a man to be infallable?

I think that the words used were “were abused” as opposed to your rendition of “is abused.”

ScottH:

Message- “Some abuses you have to be a good little soldier and shut up and accept, because we said so, and we declare we cannot be wrong on this one.”

You used quotations here. So, one can safely assume that you have a references for that quote or is that just YOUR personal view of the Church?

ScottH:

Robs wife, question them. Test the spirits.

Ahhh… but if she listens to you, she would be in violation of I James 4:1-6. Remember those verses. The ones that you tried to take out of context?

ScottH:

Its also curious to note that nobody has mentioned in this thread that these “indulgences” were in fact “sold” during the time of Luther (something not admitted to on this site, they use some fine word juxtapositioning and call it “alms” that Luther was definiant about- and by their own definition “alms” which RCism defines as indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence…)
(Never mind the end-result of “alms” is an “indulgence”, even by definition. Lord forbid anyone make a mistake- and admit it.
Yet they say “One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms” - and- if by this sites own definition- alms involve a donation that leads to an occasion to grant the indulgence…

The Holy See never taught that indulgences were to be sold. In fact, Pope Puis V at the council of Trent stated just the opposite. Were there abuses? It would seem so, but those abuses were NOT taught as doctrines of the Church. Giving money to the Church or to the poor is in itself not a bad thing. Do you tithe? Are you not charitable toward the poor? I wish anti-Catholics would stop trying to invent lies about the Church. It gets so old… 500+ years old.

 

[Tietjen]

ScottH:

Its no wonder why Luther brought this up in his 95 Thesis.
spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm
Yet, what does Catholic.com say?
"The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. "Lets use logic here. If Alms require a donation, and Alms lead to an Indulgence- a monetary donation (alms) can -and have- led to indulgences being granted!!

Again, this may have happened but it was not Church doctrine that ordained such acts. The Church squashed this abuse almost 500 years ago. Anti-Catholics are the only ones that seem to have a problem understanding this.

ScottH:

Yet they still say “One never could “buy” indulgences.”
catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

That is because it was not taught that you could by the Church. Look, if a Protestant minister were to stand up at his/her pulpit and declare that Christmas trees are pagan in origin and therefore all true Christians will never allow one in there home, should I stand up and say, “Protestant denominations say that anyone who puts up a Christmas tree isn’t a Christian?” Some Protestant ministers have actually said this by the way. No, of course I shouldn’t. Too bad anti-Catholics cannot give the same courtesy to the Church.

ScottH:

Sadly, Rob’s Wife, many here react the same way to your question in the same way the church of that time treated Luther.

Give me a break Scott. Don’t try to appeal to RobsWife by insinuating that she believes as you and Luther do. Luther was a self-serving lunatic who believed that he learned and knew more in his short little lifetime than the 1500+ year old Church did. He felt that he had special understanding (from the Holy Spirit?) and insight into what was God’s will for man just like Charles Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) did in 1872 and Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon Church) did in 1830. They were all malcontents.

“Shut up. Don’t question. Accept it… or be excommunicated.”

Where did that come from? You used quotes so surely you have a source. Maybe I missed a post somewhere or maybe you were trying to put words in someone’s mouth or misrepresent something. Anti-Catholics are good at that, but unfortunately, you are not.

ScottH:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . .
So we have now-admitted abuses, and a man who questioned them (Martin Luther) at that time.But he didn’t play the role of a “Good little Catholic Soldier” and blindly accept what he was told. This whole mess could have been easily corrected with some discernment by both parties involved. But some people, and some organizations think they ordained to never make mistakes.
It was addressed and corrected at the Council of Trent. How very dishonest of you to leave that fact out.

ScottH:

Scripture doesn’t support that notion. All fall short of the glory of God. We are all sinners.

I beg to defer with you. Scripture does support a payment for the temporal condition caused by sin. Reread the story of David and how though forgiven by God for his sin, he still had to loose his son. Remind me again why Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land?

ScottH:

Best wishes to you Robs Wife. I’m not trying to convince you to become Protestant, but I am telling you that your questioning is healthy, and God ordained.
Remember- the Antichrist will come someday. He will demand that people not question his doctrines either.

Don’t lie Scott, you are trying to convince RobsWife to leave God’s Church just as I John 4:1-6 said would happen. At least be honest with yourself if not with RobsWife. Which one of the 33,000+ different Protestant denominations do you belong to?
Okay, I’m done now. I fully expect to be blasted for the uncharitable way in which I responded, but I hate lies and I won’t sit here and watch as an anti-Catholic spews forth garbage about the Church. I hope that Scott will someday be blessed with the insight of Truth as opposed to listening and believing anti-Catholic rhetoric. Peace Scott and God bless.

 

[ScottH]

I read the text of the gospel of Trent. I notice they do not even mention Martin Luther by name. They just mention “heretics”.

Its the arrogance of the Council of Trent that simply added more fuel to the protestant fire.

Could it be argued that it was handled poorly?

 

[Genesis315]

ScottH:

I read the text of the gospel of Trent. I notice they do not even mention Martin Luther by name. They just mention “heretics”.

Its the arrogance of the Council of Trent that simply added more fuel to the protestant fire.

Could it be argued that it was handled poorly?

Well, I would say the Reformation was what was handled poorly. They threw the baby out with the bathwater. Read the 95 Theses. Then look how what the Reofrmation actually did. Their love of anticlericalism was placed above truth. They had to invent doctrines that didn’t require clerics. Exit 1500 years of Apostolic Tradition and seven books of the Bible (and Luther wanted to axe even more!) and enter sola fide and sola scriptura, doctrines of men.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

ScottH:

I read the text of the gospel of Trent. I notice they do not even mention Martin Luther by name. They just mention “heretics”.

Its the arrogance of the Council of Trent that simply added more fuel to the protestant fire.

Could it be argued that it was handled poorly?

The council of Trent isn’t gospel, but it was more effective than Luther in helping resolve that problem. Yes, the term “heretics” was used - so what, that’s what they were dealing with and Martin Luther (although he may have arguably been the worst) was an individual - the council was to determine the future of the entire church and the faithfull be resolving certain issues.

---

I think every Catholic would agree that Martin Luther handled it badly. The Council wasn’t arrogant to insist on the Truth, just because Luther didn’t like hearing it doesn’t make the Church then or now, arrogant.

---

There is no protestant fire - just embers that are snuffed out with every change in the wind. Unlike the Catholic church which has always been a steady rock to hold onto in any storm.

 

[Caldera]

Lone Ranger, that’s an interesing post…

If the Church actually uses that to help support their position, then i almost find it amusing. Why? Simply because, if that is the case, the there is no reason to send his son Jesus Christ for the Atonement for the sins of the world!

What did Christ come into the world for? To save everyone? or to forgive sins like the Father did in the Old Testament? (redundant?)

In other words, what is the point of doing the same thing that the Father did, only in the flesh?

(You’ll have to forgive me… I’m a cradle Catholic that is borderline Protestant - if not already there, and maybe worse yet, buying into the New Age Crapola (if you will) hmph… )

Prayer given to St. Faustina by the lord himself:
“Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity our your dearly beloved son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins, and those of the WHOLE WORLD!.”

“For the sake of HIS sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!”

Makes you wonder?

 

[ScottH]

The council of Trent isn’t gospel, but it was more effective than Luther in helping resolve that problem. Yes, the term “heretics” was used - so what, that’s what they were dealing with and Martin Luther (although he may have arguably been the worst) was an individual - the council was to determine the future of the entire church and the faithfull be resolving certain issues.

I think every Catholic would agree that Martin Luther handled it badly. The Council wasn’t arrogant to insist on the Truth, just because Luther didn’t like hearing it doesn’t make the Church then or now, arrogant.

There is no protestant fire - just embers that are snuffed out with every change in the wind. Unlike the Catholic church which has always been a steady rock to hold onto in any storm.

Perhaps if compassion was used with Martin Luther, things would have worked out differently. Who knows. You condemn him rather harshly. Its hard to call the situation anything other than a failure by all parties involved.

Someone above said the council of Trent fixed everything related to the issues ML brought up in the 95 Thesis. That’s good.

But why was he still labled a Heretic? The Pope should have been honored that a dilligent servant called these abuses to his attention.

What would Christ have done?

 

[Genesis315]

ScottH:

But why was he still labled a Heretic?

Because he invented new doctrines. Christ would have let him walk away if he didn’t want to believe the truth.

 

[Caldera]

bump

cough

scratches head

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

ScottH:

Perhaps if compassion was used with Martin Luther, things would have worked out differently. Who knows. You condemn him rather harshly. Its hard to call the situation anything other than a failure by all parties involved.

---

Someone above said the council of Trent fixed everything related to the issues ML brought up in the 95 Thesis. That’s good.

But why was he still labled a Heretic? The Pope should have been honored that a dilligent servant called these abuses to his attention.
**Because he nevered stopped being a heretic! I’m probably harsh on Luther because he condemned the Church rather harshly. You make it sound like he sent a polite memo of observations to the Pope and was excommunicated for it, but the fact is he was repeatedly told to reconsider the effects of his actions on the Church and the souls he was supposed to set an example for. Other priests were upset by the abuses too, but they never left the Church & were later well respected for their efforts. **
**Luther knew better. He was educated in the faith and a member of the clergy. The clergy is not just responsible for their own souls, they are responsible for the souls of those they are supposed to lead. (Much like as a mother I’m not just responsible for my soul, but for the souls of my children.) Luther ****decided to make up his own religion and, worse, he encouraged others in ignorance to follow his poor example. **
What would Christ have done?
I imagine he would have been firm in His teaching to Luther and deeply hurt when Luther turned away from Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In regard to Trent:​

TAN Books publishes the entire canons and decrees of Trent. Session 25 explicitly refers to abuses of indulgences, even while defending indulgences themselves. Anyone who tries to deny that there were real and scandalous abuses has the words of the Council to explain. The Fathers of Trent seemed to think there were serious abuses. Innocent VII (1389-1404) is suspected of having trafficked in indulgences as Pope. (I got that from a Catholic source - “The Popes”, by E. John (1964).

The translation is that of H.J.Schroeder O.P, “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”, TAN Books 1978. It should not be confused with the translation by Canon Waterworth, also republished by TAN, which is to be found in the TAN book “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees”. Waterworth’s book is a collection of the doctrinal and dogmatic parts of Trent - it does not, unlike Schroeder’s book, include the decrees for the reform of the Church which are included in the sessions of the Council. “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” also includes the 1864 Syllabus of Errors and the definitions of Vatican I.

Session 21 chapter 9:

“Since many remedies heretofore applied by different councils, those of the Lateran [Lateran V (1512-17) ? ] and Lyons [it is not clear which one] as well as that of Vienne [in 1312], against the pernicious abuses of quaestors of alms, have in later times become useless, and since their depravity is, to the great scandal and complaint of the faithful, found to be daily so much on the increase that there seems no longer to be any hope of their amendment left, it is decreed that in all parts of Christendom their name and service be henceforth absolutely abolished and in no wise shall they be permitted to exercise such an office; any privileges granted to churches, monasteries, hospitals, pious places, and to any persons of whatever rank, state, or dignity, or any customs, even though immemorial, notwithstanding. With regard to indulgences or other spiritual graces of which the Christian faithful ought not on this account to be deprived, it is decreed that they are in the future to be announced to the people at suitable times by the local ordinaries aided by two members of the chapter. To these also the authority is given to collect faithfully and without fee the alms and chritable contributions offered them so that all may understand that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered not for gain but for piety.”

(Schroeder p.142)

Session 5 Chapter 2 in June 1546 had restrained quaestors (Schroeder p. 28) - now, 16 years and a month later, the Fathers of the Council are making a clean sweep.

Session 25 chapter 21:

Session 25 in December 1563 says:

“…But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, [indulgences, which are being regulated by the decree here quoted] and by reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it [the council] ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the christian people, be absolutely abolished…”

(Schroeder p.253, 254.) ##

 

[ScottH]

Yeah, how dare Martin Luther complain about admited abuses that could possibly weaken the stance of the Roman Catholic Church?!?

 

[Mickey]

ScottH:

Yeah, how dare Martin Luther complain about admited abuses that could possibly weaken the stance of the Roman Catholic Church?!?

SARCASM–a mocking or contemptuously ironic remark intended to wound another.