P
peter26
Guest
So its been almost a month since the start of the Year of Mercy. Anyone been through a Holy Door yet? Or plan to?
- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
Only during this year? Or does 2000 count??
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
C
christofirst
Guest
Thankfully, our archbishop has extended the opportunity for the Holy Door Indulgence to numerous churches within the archdiocese;
seekmercy.org/pilgrimage-churches/
So far, I have journeyed to three of our pilgrimage churches, and plan to go to a few more of them before the Year of Mercy is over.
seekmercy.org/pilgrimage-churches/
So far, I have journeyed to three of our pilgrimage churches, and plan to go to a few more of them before the Year of Mercy is over.
D
DaveBj
Guest
No, and I won’t. I’m going to catch flak for this statement, but I think the whole “holy door” thing is silly.
I did a little studying on indulgences early in my 10-year (11 years this coming March) Catholic career. It appears to me that the whole purpose of indulgences is to try to get us to live what I call an “indulgenced life,” which is not the same as an “indulgent lifestyle.” The things required for plenary indulgences (receiving Holy Communion, praying for the intentions of the Pope, detachment from sin, staying current on Confession, etc.), plus the specific actions, some of which are quite simple (praying the Rosary in a church or chapel, visiting a Christian cemetery, 30 minutes of pious reading of Sacred Scripture, etc.) seem intended to nudge us into a life-style that is more God-centered, and therefore maybe just a little bit more holy.
Frankly, I don’t see how making a pilgrimage to a specific church and walking through a particular door of that church contributes to making one’s life more God-centered and holy.
Flame away.
I did a little studying on indulgences early in my 10-year (11 years this coming March) Catholic career. It appears to me that the whole purpose of indulgences is to try to get us to live what I call an “indulgenced life,” which is not the same as an “indulgent lifestyle.” The things required for plenary indulgences (receiving Holy Communion, praying for the intentions of the Pope, detachment from sin, staying current on Confession, etc.), plus the specific actions, some of which are quite simple (praying the Rosary in a church or chapel, visiting a Christian cemetery, 30 minutes of pious reading of Sacred Scripture, etc.) seem intended to nudge us into a life-style that is more God-centered, and therefore maybe just a little bit more holy.
Frankly, I don’t see how making a pilgrimage to a specific church and walking through a particular door of that church contributes to making one’s life more God-centered and holy.
Flame away.
T
Tigre
Guest
I really like the Holy Door indulgence. I’ll likely pass through the Holy Door at my local cathedral at least 50 times this year. His Mercy endures forever. 
C
christofirst
Guest
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html
It seemed to me like a good thing to do
. It is optional, and you are free to ignore the opportunity, and will hopefully seek that holy, God-centered life which we strive for in some other way.God bless you!
C
Casilda
Guest
I had originally read Pope Francis’ speech regarding the Jubilee Year of Mercy and that Holy Doors will be opened in every Cathedral. Then I was chastised here by CAF regulars, that there are only but a handful of “official” Holy Doors around the world. The sole one in North America is located in Canada. Well, it looks like it is for the chosen few who live near them or those fortunate enough to travel THOSE distances. Like Dave, I researched the topic. I do not understand the concept of these Holy Doors, why they originated, why they are sealed up (to keep people out! Why would the church do that!) And why would anyone discourage a faithful Catholic by telling them they have to go through an “official” Holy Door 2000 miles away when your Bishop has been instructed by the Pope himself to open doors locally for all.
Something is wrong with this.
I am an Eastern Catholic now and there is not the brouhaha surrounding this aspect of the Year of Mercy.
Something is wrong with this.
I am an Eastern Catholic now and there is not the brouhaha surrounding this aspect of the Year of Mercy.
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
I haven’t and I don’t think I ever will. The door to the confessional is enough of a holy door for me.
D
DaveBj
Guest
T
Tigre
Guest
“To experience and obtain the Indulgence, the faithful are called to make a brief pilgrimage to the Holy Door, open in every Cathedral or in the churches designated by the Diocesan Bishop, and in the four Papal Basilicas in Rome, as a sign of the deep desire for true conversion. Likewise, I dispose that the Indulgence may be obtained in the Shrines in which the Door of Mercy is open and in the churches which traditionally are identified as Jubilee Churches.”
m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html
C
Casilda
Guest
In Orthodoxy, there is a distinction between big “T” and little “t” traditions. Big “T” came directly from Christ and His Apostles. Little “t” were the ones that evolved latter. That is what I read about the Holy Doors. They didn’t originate until much later and as a solution to a problem. I don’t understand them. Christ knocked on the door of my heart, I opened the door and welcomed Him in at a tender age and He has been residing in me since then. I see no reason, no value in traveling thousand’s of miles to go through any ‘door’ when He resides in me. I simply attend Divine Liturgy, etc in my adopted tradition, Eastern Catholic. I am mostly lost to Roman Catholic traditions, especially little “t”.
G
GEddie
Guest
What thousands of miles?
When the custom of the Holy Doors is invoked, one is established in each cathedral, normally.
Dioceses where the Cathedral may be thousands of miles away do exist, but would have very few Catholics anyways.
The last thing the Church wants is to have hordes in millions converging on the SCV. It’s not caring to party like it’s 1599.
ICXC NIKA
When the custom of the Holy Doors is invoked, one is established in each cathedral, normally.
Dioceses where the Cathedral may be thousands of miles away do exist, but would have very few Catholics anyways.
The last thing the Church wants is to have hordes in millions converging on the SCV. It’s not caring to party like it’s 1599.
ICXC NIKA
P
Pulvis
Guest
Yes, last Tuesday. Our Bishop designated the local Oratory as a Holy Door site. And I do not have a problem with Indulgences since it is an established, bonafide part of our Catholic Faith. The Church has made available remission of temporal punishment, why would I not avail myself to receive this gift?
from newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:
•In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
•Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, “indulgentia a culpa et a poena”, i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, “History” etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, “De Indulg”., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve “a culpa et a poena” (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the “quaestores” or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
•The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church.
•An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God’s justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), “He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it.” The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
•In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God’s mercy and the demands of God’s justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.
from newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:
•In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
•Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, “indulgentia a culpa et a poena”, i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, “History” etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, “De Indulg”., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve “a culpa et a poena” (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the “quaestores” or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
•The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church.
•An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God’s justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), “He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it.” The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
•In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God’s mercy and the demands of God’s justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.
C
Cincinnatus1788
Guest
What about the poor souls suffering in Purgatory?
D
DaveBj
Guest
There are still easier ways to earn a plenary indulgence than making a pilgrimage to a special church with a special door. And it’s still true that only one PI can be earned each day, and only one for each reception of Holy Communion.
C
christofirst
Guest
True, and I suppose the goal is to get us to avail ourselves of these graces, which requires some effort and intention on our part. If the idea of making a pilgrimage to a Holy Door church motivates someone to take this action when they otherwise might not, this is a good thing, right?
As far as it being silly (your earlier observation), I suppose the same thing could have been said of the circumstances around some of the miracles of Jesus. When Our Lord healed the leper, he was cured instantly, but the blind man was instructed to wash seven times in the Pool of Siloam. The blind man could have said, “Go wash seven times in the pool? That’s silly! You cured the leper more easily, and he didn’t have to bathe in the pool!” But instead, the blind man followed Our Lord’s recommendation, to his great benefit.
I notice that the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville has been designated with a Holy Door of Mercy by the bishop of Birmingham. If you are in Cullman, that’s a ten mile journey. But as you say, there are easier ways.
olamshrine.org/event/holy-door-of-mercy
D
DaveBj
Guest
Actually it is 18 miles, but that’s neither here nor there. (I think there’s a pun in there somewhere.)
Under my current routine, I am eligible to get one PI a week, after receiving Holy Communion at Sunday Mass. I can fulfill the requirements for that by reading the Bible at home for a half hour, or by staying at church after Mass and praying a Rosary. I don’t have to go walk thru a special door.
By the way, you have your Bible stories mixed up.
C
christofirst
Guest
I sort of compared two Bible stories to make a point, but I don’t think I mixed them up. Our Lord healed the leper instantly in Mark 1:41, but for the blind man in John 9:7, He told him to go wash seven times in the Pool of Siloam before the healing was done. Was it silly for Jesus to make such a request of that blind man, when we know He could have performed the miracle more instantly and apparently easier as He did with the leper? Why did Our Lord ask more from one than He did the other? There are several possible answers, I suppose, but one might be that we are sometimes called to make an extra special sign of our cooperation with the graces God offers, for our benefit (God doesn’t need it, we do). That extra effort on our part might be just the thing we need to open and avail ourselves to God’s freely offered grace. Such an extra effort or motivation might not be necessary for you, and that’s OK. The Holy Father is now calling our attention to and inviting us to participate in the Jubilee Year of Mercy and the Holy Door Indulgence. It sounds like a wonderful thing to me, and Pope Francis seems to be doing all he can to make this particular opportunity available to as many people as possible. Since I am able, and the thought appeals to me, I say, why not?
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/01/pope_francis_opens_holy_door_at_st_mary_major/1198323
D
DaveBj
Guest
When was the last time you actually read the ninth chapter of John? You’re still mixing up your bible stories.
As for the blind man being told to go wash (once, not seven times), that was the only option he had – to do what Jesus told him to do. When it comes to earning plenary indulgences, we have several options to choose from. If I choose to stay home and do thirty minutes of serious Bible reading (one of the options) rather than do a pilgrimage and walk through a special door, that’s my choice. To criticize my choice or not to criticize it is your choice, but if you choose to criticize it, that says more about you and your choices than it does about me and mine.
- Status