Eastern Catholics and Purgatory

[mardukm]

I never said that bishops do not have the power to grant indulgences, but that the pope has the supreme authority to do so. That quotation from Aquinas makes it abundantly clear that the power to grant indulgences resides in bishops only because this power has been so delegated to them by the bishop of Rome, hence why he writes, "In bishops, this power resides subject to the Pope’s ordination, so that they can grant them within fixed limits and not beyond. " This explains both why the pope alone has the power to grant people the authority to grant indulgences, as well as the power to grant others the authority to grant the authority to grant indulgences (as per canon 995, section 2 from the current code of canon law), and also how the pope had the authority to limit the extent to which bishops could grant indulgences.

I guess you can (mis)interpret it that way. But the better explanation is that St. Thomas means that the power of granting indulgences resides naturally in the bishop because of the power of the keys that bishops naturally share with the Pope, but that the Pope, because of his plenary authority, has the authority to regulate it - not to take it away, as if it was his alone to grant in the first place. In the late Middle Ages, when the sale of indulgences became an obvious abuse in the Latin Church, the Pope necessarily had to use his plenary authority to regulate the practice of granting indulgences, and hence curb that abuse. This was a good thing.

I think what might be confusing is the statement “this power resides subject to the Pope’s ordination.” “Ordination” should be read as “ordinance.” The way it is translated, it seems like it is the Pope that gives the bishops the power to grant indulgences, since “ordination” has the connotation of the beginning of something. But that would be a misinterpretation given the context of the statement. Note that the statement says that the power is “subject to….” That indicates that the power already exists and is merely being regulated - hence “subject to….”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s doesn’t really make sense. The doctrine of indulgences states that the one doing it must have the INTENTION of offering up their works as an indulgence. If, as you say, "a lot of people do not realize it

They earn it by doing the act decreed by the Church. I never recall any stipulation that the indulgence is only granted if one sought it out directly.
mardukm;10134275:

Indulgences is exactly about economy. In the ancient Church, deprivation of communion for a certain number of years was considered a penance for certain sins. Bishops had the authority to remit this penance if they saw evidence of a good life from the penitent. That was an indulgence. It was a way of applying economy. They are the same thing. As mentioned before, you have a very Latin way of looking at things. That’s understandable since you grew up that way. Just know that there are other Traditions in the Catholic Church, and please don’t mistake the Latin Tradition as the

Tradition of the Catholic Church.

No they are not the same. Indulgences are for the purpose of remitting penalties in purgatory. Economy isn’t about that at all, it isn’t even about remitting penalties in this life per se. For example, a convert into Orthodoxy who is not baptized is sometimes referred to as an economy. What punishment is remitted here? The fact that they were not baptized? Or that their baptism by another Church is accepted?

Also, if you were allowed to eat meat on a fasting day is an economy. Is fasting a punishment? Asceticism is not about punishing oneself. We do not fast so we can punish ourselves, that is a wrong attitude about fasting.

 

[Vico]

We interpret it as St. John Chrysostom interprets it, that there is one everlasting fire, which is the punishment due for sins, and that the salvation here mentioned is not salvation in the sense of the bliss experienced by the righteous, but is to be understood as meaning that the unrighteous will not be destroyed by the fire, unlike their wicked works, but will abide in it for eternity.

Thank you.

 

[Vico]

That’s not true. The basic definition of an indulgence is
(1) the remittance of the normal penance attached to a particular sin.
(2) this is done through the power of the keys.

This is a patristic teaching. The Latins developed it further, however, and other Traditions don’t necessarily agree with the Latin development. But to say that indulgences only started to develop after the schism is historicall inaccurate.

Blessings,
Marduk

A good description of “temporal punishment” from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. 83

83 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Indulgences was practiced by the early Church. There was a development in the meaning behind indulgences in the Latin Church. An example of this development is the interpretation of “penance” to mean “punishment.” Penance is normally regarded as “temporal punishment” due to sin. Penance is part and parcel of the patristic Tradition. Latins refer to it as “temporal punishment.” So let’s be clear here that when Latins refer to “temporal punishment” they are referring to penance. If you do not understand this, then such statements as you and ConstantineTG have made claiming that there is no punishment after sin has been forgiven is likely to be misunderstood as denying the doctrine of penance. Is that what you are saying - that you deny the doctrine of penance?

No, remitting the temporal punishment due for sin differs from the use of economy. Indulgences are built upon the doctrine of merits. This is how one can apply indulgences to the dead per modum suffragii, the Church grants this person the merits associated with the indulgence, and through his prayers, he hopes God will apply those merits to the soul in purgatory. There is no such occurrence with economy. If I were ask my bishop to apply economy to me, and grant me the merit of forty days’ worth of canonical penance, he would look at me as if I had lost my mind, and imagine how much crazier still he would think I was, if I told him that I intended to apply the merit given to me out of economy to one of my deceased relatives or friends per modum suffragii. In this way alone we already know that indulgences differ from the use of economy.

Furthermore, the canonical penance differs from the Latin concept of temporal punishment demanded by the Divine justice. The former is for the transformation of the sinner, and it is dissolved upon death. If one dies while serving penance, it is not held that he must go and complete this penance (or suffer an amount of pain equivalent to it) in a place of purgation, because satisfying the Divine justice is not the purpose which the canonical penance serves. Plus, if it were the case that the canonical penance were supposed to satisfy the Divine justice, then how can we be sure that five years of penance is enough for trigamy, or that fifteen years of penance is enough for adultery? Would we really arrogate to ourselves the power to know the demands made by the very justice of God itself (something which St. Isaac of Nineveh teaches is impossible)?

We know that in the early Church, penance could be remitted by bishops if there was evidence of the good life of the penitent. That’s exactly the basis for indulgences in the Latin Catholic Church, though they refer to “penance” as “temporal punishment.”

Since we reject the thinking that forgiven sins need to be punished, I do not see how temporal punishment, which is demanded by the Divine justice, could in any way be equivalent to the penance.

 

[mardukm]

They earn it by doing the act decreed by the Church. I never recall any stipulation that the indulgence is only granted if one sought it out directly.

You are confusing “indulgence” with “merit.” Every good act earns “merit” in the Latin Catholic theology. Not every good act is an “indulgence.” The intention must be present. Every indulgence requires intention. The old Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states, “It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence.”

No they are not the same. Indulgences are for the purpose of remitting penalties in purgatory. Economy isn’t about that at all, it isn’t even about remitting penalties in this life per se.

It doesn’t seem like you have a good understanding of economy. Certainly, at the very least you do not have a proper understanding of indulgences for you to be able to make a comparison.

For example, a convert into Orthodoxy who is not baptized is sometimes referred to as an economy. What punishment is remitted here? The fact that they were not baptized? Or that their baptism by another Church is accepted?

Economy is the relaxation or remittance of the penalty normally attached to the violation of the Church’s rule (whether divine or ecclesiastical). It is not a relaxation of a rule (contrary to popular opinion). God hates weights and balances. God applies the same rules to all. The Church, through the power of the keys, cannot change a divine rule, but only remit the normal penalties attached to a violation of a rule. That baptism is necessary is a divine rule. The Church has no authority to change this. The economy being granted as regards baptism - i.e., the penalty being remitted - is the excommunication that normally comes with peforming a Sacrament outside the Church.

Also, if you were allowed to eat meat on a fasting day is an economy. Is fasting a punishment? Asceticism is not about punishing oneself. We do not fast so we can punish ourselves, that is a wrong attitude about fasting.

Can you explain what this has to do with anything being discussed?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

A good description of “temporal punishment” from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is:
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. 83

83 Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.

Excellent. It seems that “temporal punishment”: is regarded a “punishment” only by analogy - i.e., to “eternal punishment.” It is not really “punishment” per se, in the sense that God is paying you back for the bad deed you did. I see that the Council of Trent is referenced in that quote. Again, excellent. Thank you for the much-needed clarification.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[devoutchristian]

They called them absolution certificates, and it seems that they didn’t quite get the theology behind indulgences, because it was claimed that absolution certificates absolved somebody of his sins, which is not the purpose of indulgences.

Good point.

So let’s be clear here that when Latins refer to “temporal punishment” they are referring to penance.

No, we’re referring to the suffering (call it whatever you like) due to forgiven sins, the stain of which souls have not been completely purified of.

There is an error, however, in how detractors of papal primacy misinterpret everything about the Pope as meaning the Pope ALONE has the power to do things.

Other bishops can only grant indulgences because of the pope’s delegation of the power to do so to them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Economy is the relaxation or remittance of the penalty normally attached to the violation of the Church’s rule (whether divine or ecclesiastical). It is not a relaxation of a rule (contrary to popular opinion). God hates weights and balances. God applies the same rules to all.

Explain then, if the practice of granting indulgences is equivalent to the practice of pastoral economy, why indulgences are held only to be efficacious for those who have shown signs of the fruits of repentance, while economy may be applied in many other cases, such as lessening the penance upon one who is weak in his faith and liable to fall into despair. Is economy not efficacious in these cases? When a priest allows a sinner to commune after a light penance, in order that he might not fall into despair, is the use of economy ineffectual, if he did not begin to show the fruits of repentance, but continued to struggle? Will the sinner then have to suffer in purgatory in order to satisfy the Divine justice?

 

[devoutchristian]

If I were ask my bishop to apply economy to me, and grant me the merit of forty days’ worth of canonical penance, he would look at me as if I had lost my mind, and imagine how much crazier still he would think I was, if I told him that I intended to apply the merit given to me out of economy to one of my deceased relatives or friends per modum suffragii.

Another good point.

It doesn’t seem like you have a good understanding of economy. Certainly, at the very least you do not have a proper understanding of indulgences for you to be able to make a comparison.

He does appear to have a good understanding of economy.

 

[mardukm]

No, remitting the temporal punishment due for sin differs from the use of economy. Indulgences are built upon the doctrine of merits. This is how one can apply indulgences to the dead per modum suffragii, the Church grants this person the merits associated with the indulgence, and through his prayers, he hopes God will apply those merits to the soul in purgatory. There is no such occurrence with economy. If I were ask my bishop to apply economy to me, and grant me the merit of forty days’ worth of canonical penance, he would look at me as if I had lost my mind, and imagine how much crazier still he would think I was, if I told him that I intended to apply the merit given to me out of economy to one of my deceased relatives or friends per modum suffragii. In this way alone we already know that indulgences differ from the use of economy.

First of all, the mistaken assumption here is that the doctrine of indulgences is part of the dogma of Purgatory, Indulgences are primarily for the satisfaction of penance on earth. This has ever been its main intention. We can discuss indulgence without referring to Purgatory, which is what I propose we do. If we limit indulgences only in reference to this life, not in the life hereafter, there is a greater relation to economy than you might be willing to admit.

Secondly, the early Church remitted the normal canonical penance due to certain sins because of evidence of the penitent’s good life. HIs good acts were the basis of the indulgence. The indulgence was granted out of economy. That’s the same with the Latin Catholic Church, except that Latin Catholic theology has attached “merit” to each good act. We can talk about indulgences without referring to “merit.” We can even talk about indulgences without calling it “indulgences.” But the basic assumptions of Latin indulgences is patristic. We don’t need to accept the later Latin accretions (not that those additions are necessarily wrong).

Furthermore, the canonical penance differs from the Latin concept of temporal punishment demanded by the Divine justice. The former is for the transformation of the sinner, and it is dissolved upon death. If one dies while serving penance, it is not held that he must go and complete this penance (or suffer an amount of pain equivalent to it) in a place of purgation, because satisfying the Divine justice is not the purpose which the canonical penance serves.

First of all, I agree with this as an Oriental. However, in the Oriental Tradition (can’t say how strong it is, but it is present), it is possible that even those who have died as sinners, after being punished spiritually after death in Hades, can be transformed. It’s just a possibility that some people hold (a theologoumenon), not saying that it is an actual doctrine of the Oriental Churches.

Secondly, you have a misunderstanding of the Latin concept of Purgatory if you think that it is for “the transformation of the sinner.” There are no sinners in the Latin understanding of Purgatory, since all mortal sin has been forgiven, and there is no possibility for justification (per se) in the afterlife. Purgatory is for the building of holiness that is required by the Divine Justice (according to Latin theology). It is a transformation (a continual transformation in the Eastern understanding), but it is not from the state of being a sinner - only a transformation to more holiness.

Plus, if it were the case that the canonical penance were supposed to satisfy the Divine justice, then how can we be sure that five years of penance is enough for trigamy, or that fifteen years of penance is enough for adultery? Would we really arrogate to ourselves the power to know the demands made by the very justice of God itself (something which St. Isaac of Nineveh teaches is impossible)?

You think the early Fathers were arrogant for assigning a number of years of excommunication to people for certain sins? What is satisfied is the holiness demanded by Divine Justice. The penance leads to holiness and is for that purpose. It is not “pay back.” I have yet to see a single magisterial document from the Latin Church (much less the Catholic Church as a whole) that states that penance is for “pay back.”

Since we reject the thinking that forgiven sins need to be punished, I do not see how temporal punishment, which is demanded by the Divine justice, could in any way be equivalent to the penance.

Brother Vico gave a good explanation of “temporal punishment” in a previous post from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think much of the problem is that too many people presume “Divine Justice” means “Divine Vengeance,” Latins and non-Latins alike.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, we’re referring to the suffering (call it whatever you like) due to forgiven sins, the stain of which souls have not been completely purified of.

That’s wierd. I’ve never read a Latin magisterial document which disconnects the “suffering due to forgiven sins” from penance. Do you have a source to back up your claim?

Secondly, what is the “stain” of which you speak? The only stain I am familiar with from Catholic Magisterial documents is sin itself, which is completely removed in the Sacrament. Perhaps this is just another example of a difference in language.

Other bishops can only grant indulgences because of the pope’s delegation of the power to do so to them.

Where does it say that? If the power of the keys is a natural part of the office of bishop, and the power of the keys is the basis for the granting of indulgences, how do you propose bishops don’t have that power naturally when they become bishop? The Pope can say what kind of indulgences other bishops can grant, but I’m not aware that he is the one who gives them the power to grant indulgences per se. Again, please cite a magisterial document for your opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

He does appear to have a good understanding of economy.

I’m sure you Latins have a better grasp of this Eastern concept better than those in the East who live it

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m sure you Latins have a better grasp of this Eastern concept better than those in the East who live it

I think devoutchristian was making that remark in you defense.

 

[mardukm]

Explain then, if the practice of granting indulgences is equivalent to the practice of pastoral economy, why indulgences are held only to be efficacious for those who have shown signs of the fruits of repentance, while economy may be applied in many other cases, such as lessening the penance upon one who is weak in his faith and liable to fall into despair. Is economy not efficacious in these cases? When a priest allows a sinner to commune after a light penance, in order that he might not fall into despair, is the use of economy ineffectual, if he did not begin to show the fruits of repentance, but continued to struggle? Will the sinner then have to suffer in purgatory in order to satisfy the Divine justice?

I said granting indulgences is an application of economy. I didn’t say that is the ONLY way economy can be applied.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think devoutchristian was making that remark in you defense.

Yeah, but a lot of Latins think that economy means that the Church has the power to change a divine rule. So I don’t think it is much of a complement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are confusing “indulgence” with “merit.” Every good act earns “merit” in the Latin Catholic theology. Not every good act is an “indulgence.” The intention must be present. Every indulgence requires intention. The old Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states, “It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence.”

I’m talking about visiting graves during All Saints week, which earns indulgences. There is nothing about it that says one must seek the indulgence directly to earn it. If you think I’m wrong, I’m open to reading something that teaches the contrary to my claim, rather than unfounded hammering that I’m wrong without stating why.

It doesn’t seem like you have a good understanding of economy. Certainly, at the very least you do not have a proper understanding of indulgences for you to be able to make a comparison.

My understanding of economy is fine. Maybe you’re trying to apply your misunderstanding of it to me. Maybe sometimes, just sometimes, if someone has a differing opinion to yourself consider that maybe that once that you are wrong. You are not right about everything you know. In fact, reading your posts, you’re not right about most things \

Economy is the relaxation or remittance of the penalty normally attached to the violation of the Church’s rule (whether divine or ecclesiastical). It is not a relaxation of a rule (contrary to popular opinion). God hates weights and balances. God applies the same rules to all. The Church, through the power of the keys, cannot change a divine rule, but only remit the normal penalties attached to a violation of a rule. That baptism is necessary is a divine rule. The Church has no authority to change this. The economy being granted as regards baptism - i.e., the penalty being remitted - is the excommunication that normally comes with peforming a Sacrament outside the Church.

BZZZZ! WRONG!

Oikonomia (also spelled oikonomeia, economia or economy) literally means “household management,” the “law of the house,” or “house building,” and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man’s salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.

Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other is Akriveia or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of Oikonomia is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application of Akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one. Pastoral Discretion is of key importance in either application.

orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia

It has nothing to do with remission of penalties. Although at times it does seem that way, the intention is never to remit penalties as “favors” or because remission is earned in some way like indulgences.

 

[mardukm]

I’m talking about visiting graves during All Saints week, which earns indulgences. There is nothing about it that says one must seek the indulgence directly to earn it. If you think I’m wrong, I’m open to reading something that teaches the contrary to my claim, rather than unfounded hammering that I’m wrong without stating why.

I just quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also, there was a relatively recent plenary indulgence given by the Pope and one of the conditions was the INTENTION to have the indulgence. Please back up your claim that one does not have to seek the indulgence directly to earn it. LIke I said, I just quoted the old Catholic Encyclopedia, so it doesn’t seem like you are very “open” to something that teaches the contrary to your claim.

My understanding of economy is fine. Maybe you’re trying to apply your misunderstanding of it to me. Maybe sometimes, just sometimes, if someone has a differing opinion to yourself consider that maybe that once that you are wrong. You are not right about everything you know. In fact, reading your posts, you’re not right about most things \

You were wrong on indulgences not having proper intention. You were wrong when you claimed that the doctrine of the iC refers to something more than the spiritual condition of Mary. You were wrong when you stated that it is normative for the Latin Church to have missa solitaria. You were wrong when you stated that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the only authority in the Catholic Church. You were wrong to claim that Eastern Catholics don’t believe in Purgatory just because the word is not mentioned in the Liturgy. You were wrong by claiming that indulgences only developed after the schism. You think I’ve been wrong because I challenged you on your errors and you were proven wrong. That’s ok. You are entitled to your opinion.

BZZZZ! WRONG!

Oikonomia (also spelled oikonomeia, economia or economy) literally means “household management,” the “law of the house,” or “house building,” and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man’s salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.

Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other is Akriveia or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of Oikonomia is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application of Akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one. Pastoral Discretion is of key importance in either application.

orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia

It has nothing to do with remission of penalties. Although at times it does seem that way.

Nice parroting, but no real understanding of it. Economy seems like what I stated because that is what economy actually is. This remission of normal canonical penalties can serve different, holy purposes, but the act of oikonomia exhibits itself formally in exactly that action. Individual bishops don’t go around changing the rules when a general or plenary body of bishops has agreed on a rule. That’s not the way the Church works, though you pretend to know better.

the intention is never to remit penalties as “favors” or because remission is earned in some way like indulgences.

I didn’t mention anything about “favors” or “earning.” Basically, you had a misunderstanding of Latin Catholic theology, and consistently impose your misunderstanding on what people say. Someone comes here and asks about Purgatory, and all you do is speak about it in terms of what the Latin Catholic Church teaches, forgetting that the Catholic Church does not consist only of the Latin Catholic Church. So because you reject the Latin Catholic understanding of Purgatory, you make these unfounded claims like “Eastern Catholics don’t believe in Purgatory” (or, just as another example among many, “Eastern Catholics don’t believe in the IC”). That’s like saying because Oriental Orthodox don’t express belief about the two natures of Christ the same way as the Chalcedonians, Oriental Orthodox don’t believe Christ has two natures. Your language is overly polemic and misrepresents the unity of the Catholic Church.

Other non-Latins here, thankfully, have expressed the belief of Eastern Catholics much better than you. Statements such as “We believe in something similar but we don’t often call it Purgatory” is more correct and representative of the Eastern (and generally non-Latin) belief than saying “We don’t believe in Purgatory.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Some insight can be gained about the western doctrine through reading the Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967), an excerpt follows:

Chapter III
6. The Church, aware of these truths ever since its origins, formulated and undertook various ways of applying the fruits of the Lord’s redemption to the individual faithful and of leading them to cooperate in the salvation of their brothers, so that the entire body of the Church might be prepared in justice and sanctity for the complete realization of the kingdom of God, when He will be all things to all men.

The Apostles themselves, in fact, exhorted their disciples to pray for the salvation of sinners.[23] This very ancient usage of the Church has blessedly persevered,[24] particularly in the practice of penitents invoking the intercession of the entire community,[25] and when the dead are assisted with suffrages, particularly through the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.[26] Good works, particularly those which human frailty finds difficult, were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners from the Church’s most ancient times.[27] And since the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for the law of God were considered of great value, penitents used to turn to the martyrs, to be helped by their merits to obtain from the bishops a more speedy reconciliation.[28] Indeed the prayer and good works of the upright were considered to be of so great value that it could be asserted the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people.[29]

It was not believed, however, that the individual faithful by their own merits alone worked for the remission of sins of their brothers, but that the entire Church as a single body united to Christ its Head was bringing about satisfaction.[30]

The Church of the Fathers was fully convinced that it was pursuing the work of salvation in community, and under the authority of the pastors established by the Holy Spirit as bishops to govern the Church of God.[31] The bishops, therefore, prudently assessing these matters, established the manner and the measure of the satisfaction to be made and indeed permitted canonical penances to be replaced by other possibly easier works, which would be useful to the common good and suitable for fostering piety, to be performed by the penitents themselves and sometimes by others among the faithful.[32]

Chapter IV
7. The conviction existing in the Church that the pastors of the flock of the Lord could set the individual free from the vestiges of sins by applying the merits of Christ and of the saints led gradually, in the course of the centuries and under the influence of the Holy Spirit’s continuous inspiration of the people of God, to the usage of indulgences which represented a progression in the doctrine and discipline of the Church rather than a change.[33] From the roots of revelation a new advantage grew in benefit to the faithful and the entire Church.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm

 

[mardukm]

Some insight can be gained about the western doctrine through reading the Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967), an excerpt follows:

Chapter III
6. The Church, aware of these truths ever since its origins, formulated and undertook various ways of applying the fruits of the Lord’s redemption to the individual faithful and of leading them to cooperate in the salvation of their brothers, so that the entire body of the Church might be prepared in justice and sanctity for the complete realization of the kingdom of God, when He will be all things to all men.

Thank you for this, brother Vico. When I was not yet in the Catholic Church, I used to argue that the doctrines of merit, indulgences, and Purgatory detracted from the Sacrifice of the Lord. That was what my non-Catholic teachers taught me. I needed to read what the Catholic Church herself was saying to understand that the very basis of these things, their very efficacy and very existence, depends wholly on the the reality of Christ’s Sacrifice. Merits, indulgences and Purgatory are not effective or can even exist apart from that reality. These doctrines don’t take away from Christ’s Sacrifice, but are the ways that the Grace of Christ’s Sacrifice is applied in the Church.

Of course, as an Oriental, I can do without the notions of scrupulous accounting or vengeance popularly (though not dogmatically) attached to these doctrines.

Blessings,
Marduk