D
devoutchristian
Guest
The name became widespread after the schism, but that doesn’t mean that the concept didn’t predate the schism.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Sure, but only in the West. That is my point. There are many things that are local practices in the Church and at certain point become part of a more widespread practice. Though indulgences were thought of earlier on, it wasn’t really a widespread practice until after the Great Schism. So this is certainly something not patristic in the East. And even though, as show here on this thread, the East has at some point ventured into the practice, it was never adopted widespread in the East and was eventually dropped all together. That is how Christianity works, at least in the East, from the earliest days. Some people experiment and sometimes it bears fruit and is adopted by all. Sometimes it doesn’t bear fruit for whatever reason and is dropped altogether. No one back then declares something dogma out of the blue and then suddenly everyone just needs to accept it. I don’t know why today you and other Latins feel that there must be uniformity in every little aspect of Christianity within the Church. It was never the case in the past, I don’t know why you think today is any different.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
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. This is why once the practice of selling absolution certificates was condemned, they fell into disuse, because there is no theological framework for them to fit into. One does not (at least to my knowledge) obtain an absolution certificate for saying certain prayers, like the small paraclesis, or the akathist hymn in the same way that one can receive an indulgence for praying the rosary or some other indulgenced prayer. Again, our disagreement with indulgences lies with our disagreement over whether God must necessarily punish sins one has been absolved from.
M
mardukm
Guest
Who said anything about punishment? I see you are laboring under the same impression as brother devoutChristian that punishment is equivalent to suffering. I guess in the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic way of looking at things, any time we suffer, then it is a punishment from God. That’s foreign to my understanding as an Oriental Christian. It’s really got nothing to do with salvation anyway, so it’s not a point that merits division (unless you want it to).
Satisfaction and punishment are not the same thing. Indulgences is not about punishment. Can you or devoutChristian offer any magisterial Church documents that state that indulgences are for the sake of punishment?
We can still suffer for our sins even after our sins our forgiven. That is the clear message of the Scripture (e.g., the book of Hebrews). It says that if we are not God’s children, we would not be chastised. Are you claiming that you reject this scriptural teaching? I suspect you would not disagree with it, but I think you and ConstantineTG are confusing matters because both of you (along with DevoutChristian) keep equating punishment - satisfaction - suffering.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s how Oriental theology understands it - to be more concise, without the punishment part so much.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
You didn’t answer this part of the question. Why is there a bias against the bishop of Rome having the authority to offer indulgences if every bishop has that authority?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
In the Oriental understanding, satisfaction does not necessarily equate to punishment. ConstantineTG has a Latin way of looking at things, but that’s understandable. Just as long as it’s clear that ConstantineTG is trying to present the LATIN understanding, not the teaching of the Catholic Church as a whole.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
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 itEconomy and indulgences are not the same thing. Economy is applied to this life, not to the next. Economy is more compatible with Dispensation, not Indulgences.
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.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
There is no bias against the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome claims to have the sole authority in the Roman Catholic Church to grant indulgences exceeding a certain amount of time (look at the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Of course, since it is clear that we reject the satisfaction theology behind indulgences, and not just because they are issued by the Bishop of Rome, I see no reason for this particular fixation of upon the bishop of Rome.
M
mardukm
Guest
OK, thanks for the explanation. So there was really no point in your bringing up the bishop of Rome in this discussion.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Just as there was no point in making a big deal out of it. By the way, the Catholic encyclopedia corroborates my claim, that the bishop of Rome has the sole authority to issue indulgences, and not all bishops, because the authority to grant indulgences is not conferred by holy orders.
The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year’s indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside–except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, “Quodlib.”, II, q. viii, a. 16).
M
mardukm
Guest
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
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
How interesting, because the Catholic Encyclopedia defines an indulgence as, “An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.”
Are we to believe that the author of this article, its editors, the cardinal Archbishop of New York who granted this article an imprimatur, and the censor who granted this article a nihil obstat all in theological error?
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not the one who brought it up, and every claim that is questionable needs a response.
That’s not the whole story. It is true enough that the granting of indulgences is not attached to the power of orders, but rather to the power of jurisdiction. What is missing here is the fact that the granting of indulgences is attached to the power of the keys. That is why ALL bishops have this authority (again, not by virtue of the power of orders, but by virtue of the power of jurisdiction). The power of the keys is naturally shared by all bishops. It is the Traditional ([capital T]) understanding of the Catholic Church (contrary to the claims of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors), as reflected in the Traditional Rite of Consecration of every new bishop in the Catholic Church (though the Rite was changed in the 1960’s). As you can see, the article states that the granting of indulgences by other bishops was regulated, but it was not taken away.
In any case, enough about this.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
The “punishment” part is particularly Latin theology, but the rest is of it is exactly what I stated. Penance is “popularly” (to be distinguished from “dogmatically”) regarded as “punishment” in Latin theology. But other Traditions do not necessarily define penance in that way.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Then why is the pope the only one capable of granting priests the authority to give indulgences? And why is that the pope was capable of removing the ability to grant plenary indulgences from bishops? Furthermore, Aquinas writes: The Pope has the plenitude of pontifical power, being like a king in his kingdom: whereas the bishops are appointed to a share in his solicitude, like judges over each city. Hence them alone the Pope, in his letters, addresses as “brethren,” whereas he calls all others his “sons.” Therefore the plenitude of the power of granting indulgences resides in the Pope, because he can grant them, as he lists, provided the cause be a lawful one: while, in bishops, this power resides subject to the Pope’s ordination, so that they can grant them within fixed limits and not beyond.
ST suppl., 26, iii.
Was Thomas Aquinas in theological error too?
M
mardukm
Guest
I guess we can talk about it some more since it is related to indulgences which is popularly (though mistakenly) believed to be part of the dogma on Purgatory.
Note carefully that he states that the “plenitude” of the power of granting indulgences resides in the Pope, not that ONLY the Pope has the power of granting indulgences. That means that the Pope has the power to grant any kind of indulgences - it doesn’t mean that ONLY the Pope has the power to grant indulgences.
Blessings,
Marduk
Note carefully that he states that the “plenitude” of the power of granting indulgences resides in the Pope, not that ONLY the Pope has the power of granting indulgences. That means that the Pope has the power to grant any kind of indulgences - it doesn’t mean that ONLY the Pope has the power to grant indulgences.
No error here. 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. “Sola papa” as much an error as the “sola” errors of the Protestants.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
How can one understand the a dogma without understanding the theological context behind it? Without this contextualization, the wording of the dogma is dissolved into meaninglessness. This would be like arguing that the Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed is compatible with a modalist faith, because it uses the term homoousion, and does not confess that Father and Son are heterohypostatos. But this would be to ignore the context in which the creed was written, which is clearly not modalist.
M
mardukm
Guest
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?
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.”
That’s the context of it. Perhaps you have a different understanding of the “context” to which you refer. Can you please explain the “context” as you understand it?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
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.
- Status