Indulgences, merit, temporal punishment

  • Thread starter Thread starter toknowservelove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

toknowservelove

Guest
I’m trying to get a handle on indulgences. I’ve read the catechism, articles from This Rock and other CA materials, a wonderful article on Catholic Culture.com–wonderful because it was clear and didn’t use so much theological language, but still presented the theology. I have even read the Enchiridion.

But, it is just not sinking in, and I think that is partly because I do not understand merit or temporal punishment due to sin. :banghead: The article about merit in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia confused me. I couldn’t tell when they were talking about human merit and when they were talking about supernatural merit. And does God “owe” us anything?

I can not find any kind of definition or explanation of temporal punishment due to sin. Does that mean purgatory only? :confused:

The example apologists give for understanding the need for indulgences is the boy breaking the window. He can be forgiven for his carelessness, but the window is still broken. I take it the broken window in this metaphos is the temporal effect of the sin. But an indulgence wouldn’t suddenly fix the window. Now, all analogies fall short, so maybe someone has another analogy I might better understand.

I love Catholic theology because it is an organic whole. I am confused by Catholic theology because it is an organic whole…and if you don’t get one part, you don’t get the other parts, and trying to learn one thing usually leads you to five other things.

Thanks for your help.
 
I’m trying to get a handle on indulgences.
Here is an article on Indulgences:

INDULGENCES

The Scriptures | The ChurchFathers

The doctrine of indulgences is probably the least understood teaching of the Catholic Church, an so unfortunately littleuse is made of such great treasure and graces we would have otherwise obtained for ourselves and others.

What then is an indulgence?

An indulgence is simply a remission through the infinite merits of JesusChrist and His Saints of the temporal punishment due for sins committed after guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted.

Sacred Scripture gives us an example of what is meant by "temporal punishment."Mary, the sister of Moses, was forgiven by God for complaining againsther brother. Nevertheless, despite such forgiveness, God imposed upon her the temporal punishment of leprosy and seven days exile from her people(Num. 12). A thief may be sorry for stealing a large sum of money froma gentleman, but he is still required to return the money taken and evendo time in prison.

That Our Lord has given the Church the power of granting indulgences is implied in Scripture: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (St. Matt. 16, 19). We notice that no limit is placed upon this power of loosing, "the power of the keys"as it is called .

St. Paul provides a clear example of the Church using this power with respect to the incestuous Corinthian upon whom he had imposed a severe penance. After learning of the Corinthian’s fervent sorrow St. Paul absolved him of the penance which he had imposed saying: “For, what I have pardoned,if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2, 10 [Douai]).

In this example we have the elements of a true indulgence: (i) a penance (temporal punishment) imposed on the Corinthian by St. Paul; (ii) sorrowon the part of the sinner for his crime; (iii) the relaxation of the penanceby St. Paul (the indulgence); (iv) the relaxation done in the “person ofChrist.”

Further, Catholics believe that many of the faithful throughout the centuries - virgins, martyrs, confessors, saints etc. - have performed penances and good works far in excess of what was due as temporal punishment for their own sins. Their merits, in union with the infinite merits ofJesus Christ, form a “spiritual treasury” which the Church can draw uponto assist other members of the Church in general or, in particular, pay the debt of temporal punishment both for the living and the dead:

“I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1, 24); “For just as the body is oneand has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, areone body, so it is with Christ;…If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” (1 Cor.12, 12-26).

Therefore, by virtue of the Communion of Saints the faithful can assist each other with their prayers, masses, alms givings to remit temporal punishment due to sin, most particularly, to offer mass for the deceased to remit temporal punishment due in purgatory.

It must be understood the merits of Christ and the saints form the source of indulgences. This treasury is left to the Keeping of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.

An indulgence may be plenary or partial according as to whether it removes either all or part of the temporal punishment due to sin. The requirements for gaining a plenary indulgence are (1) performance of the indulgence work - for example, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament for at least one half an hour, devout reading of the Sacred Scriptures for at least one half an hour, or praying the Marian Rosary in a church, public oratory or family group, etc.; (2) sacramental confession; (3) eucharistic communion,and (4) prayer for the Pope’s intentions. The last three conditions maybe fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work. However, it is fitting that communion be received and the prayer for the Pope’s intentions be said on the same day the work is performed. If any of these conditions are not fulfilled the indulgence gained will only be partial.

A partial indulgence is gained by any of the faithful who either, in the performance of their duties and bearing the trials of life, raise their mind with humble confidence to God, adding some pious invocation; or in a spirit of faith and mercy, give of themselves or of their goods to servetheir brothers in need; or in a spirit of penance, voluntarily deprive themselves of what is licit and pleasing to them. Works which can be performed for partial indulgences include reciting any of the following prayers: Profession of Faith, De Profundis, Magnificat, Sub Tuum Praesidium, Memorare,Salve Regina, Grace before and after meals, Adoro Te Devote, Angelus, AnimaChristi, Te Deum, Litanies, the Sign of the Cross, etc.

Indulgences are a great aid to true devotion, fostering a spirit of prayer and sacrifice in the name of Christ, not just for one’s own benefit,but for the benefit of all the faithful.
 
But, it is just not sinking in, and I think that is partly because I do not understand merit or temporal punishment due to sin. :banghead: The article about merit in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia confused me. I couldn’t tell when they were talking about human merit and when they were talking about supernatural merit. And does God “owe” us anything?

I can not find any kind of definition or explanation of temporal punishment due to sin. Does that mean purgatory only? :confused:
Thanks for your help.
Hello to love… I hope this teaching I’ve had in my files for ages helps.👍:)Carlan

A teaching on sin and it’s affects.​

Sin has a double consequence, every sin, even a venial sin entails an unhealthy attachment to us
which must be purified. Yes, we have been forgiven when we repent of our sin and are restored to

communion with God, but temporal punishment remains, and we must strive to accept temporal
punishment as a grace to do good and ‘put off the old man’ completely and put on the ‘new man’.
This is how we come to achieve holiness.

This unhealthy attachment to sin is either purified in this life on earth or after death in the state called purgatory.

This purification frees one from what is called ‘temporal punishment of sin.

These two punishments must not be conceived of as any kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

(This is deep stuff which calls for pondering what you now believe, and giving over to God for enlightenment.)

Again, temporal punishment due to sin, whose guilt has already been paid for by Jesus, Catholics believe is a grace from God to help us to become better Christians by purification so as to achieve the holiness needed to enter into the joy of heaven.

Beatitude; Happy the pure in heart, they shall see God.
 
not a theologian…

a short form explanation that may not be as good as what has been shared with you. BUt its short.

consider sin like any other bad habit.
the best way to counter a bad habit, is with a good habit
also by participating “working” we involve ourselves in “turning away from sin” in a way that generally sinks in rather than “ok, go and sin no more”

so, by “doing something” we help break our bad habit of sin.
we replace a bad habit (sin) with a good habit (prayer, mass, adoration, etc)

is it theologically correct? i wouldnt count on it… but i figure its like prepping and eating carrots when you are trying to fix your bad diet…hopefully you get into the HABIT of keeping healthy snacks around and you lose your taste for cupcakes and candy…
 
This may be helpful, too. There is a section on Indulgences, among many other things.

Radio Replies Volume II

Also:

Radio Replies Volume III

[The Summary of Catechism of Chistian Doctrine based on Baltimore Catechism](A Summary of the Baltimore Catechism PUNISHMENT AND INDULGENCES)

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ON INDULGENCES


A good website to search is:

www.catholicapologetics.info/

Search words like Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, Merit, etc. on the website and look thorugh the results that come back. There are a number of them that may be helpful.
 
Since I’m a member of the Carmelite Scapular Confraternity, I feel obligated to put in some sort of explanation.

First, there are two types of punishments for sins: eternal punishment (given in Hell) and temporal (given in this life and in Purgatory). The only ways to eliminate eternal punishment are via Baptism or Confession. Temporal punishment is forgiven in various ways: Baptism, Confession, devoutly using a sacramental, receiving an indulgence, or just simply being genuinely contrite about said sin. The reason why there is a difference is because mortal sin kills our relationship with God (and thus incurs eternal punishment), whereas venial sin only injures it (and merits temporal punishment). Baptism will eliminate every ill effect of every sin and Confession will eliminate all eternal punishment and some temporal punishment. The remaining temporal punishment is the reason why your confessor gives you a penance and why we have other ways of eliminating temporal punishment on top of that. The “catch” with indulgences is that you must be in a state of grace (same as receiving Communion-because indulgences don’t forgive eternal punishment) and indulgences don’t protect you from future sins. You must also perform the indulgenced act with the intention of receiving the indulgence and in the case of plenary (full) indulgences, you must also go to Confession, receive Communion, and pray for the Pope’s intentions. So while indulgences can shorten your stay in Purgatory, they can’t help you if you go to Hell.

BTW, if you see a length of time associated with an indulgence (eg. 200 days), that means it is a partial indulgence (which obviously forgives a part of temporal punishment) equivalent to that many days penance in this life by the penance standards of early Christians, not that many days off of Purgatory as some people think. This misunderstanding is why the Church doesn’t measure partial indulgences anymore, but some older prayers still have it.
 
Here is an article I found on-line by a Protestant and his explanation of temporal punishment. Is it true that we teach the punishment is vinidicatory?

I know this is getting a bit into apologetics, but how would you answer some of his charges at the end of the article? i.e. by making prayer a “penance” we make it seem like a punishment rather than a joy. To me, anyone who has spent any time in prayer knows that it is both. It is a joy to lift our hearts and minds to God. It is a penance because it takes practice and effort to remain there. In a way we ‘punish’ ourselves, though I think discipline is a more accurate word, by forcing our wayward thoughts to focus and refocus on God.

Here is the link to his article: justforcatholics.org/a166.htm

PS Thanks for all your answers this far. It’s been very helpful.
 
I’ll give you the simplistic version as I understand it
I’m trying to get a handle on indulgences. I’ve read the catechism, articles from This Rock and other CA materials, a wonderful article on Catholic Culture.com–wonderful because it was clear and didn’t use so much theological language, but still presented the theology. I have even read the Enchiridion.

But, it is just not sinking in, and I think that is partly because I do not understand merit or temporal punishment due to sin. :banghead: The article about merit in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia confused me. I couldn’t tell when they were talking about human merit and when they were talking about supernatural merit. And does God “owe” us anything?
No god does not “owe” we offer sacrifices as prayers of intercession (like a rosary)(human part) yet god values our work (supernatural part)
I cannot find any kind of definition or explanation of temporal punishment due to sin. Does that mean purgatory only? :confused:
It is up to god whether all temporal punishment is completed on earth (as occurs in saints) or in purgatory
The example apologists give for understanding the need for indulgences is the boy breaking the window. He can be forgiven for his carelessness, but the window is still broken. I take it the broken window in this metaphos is the temporal effect of the sin. But an indulgence wouldn’t suddenly fix the window. Now, all analogies fall short, so maybe someone has another analogy I might better understand…
I think the breaking of the window represents the sin, while the repair of the window represents and indulgence. The repair is the sacrifice.

That is my limited understanding
 
The example apologists give for understanding the need for indulgences is the boy breaking the window. He can be forgiven for his carelessness, but the window is still broken. I take it the broken window in this metaphos is the temporal effect of the sin. But an indulgence wouldn’t suddenly fix the window. Now, all analogies fall short, so maybe someone has another analogy I might better understand.
It’s going to cost a certain amount of money to fix the window, and the boy will be doing odd jobs for quite a while to earn it. An indulgence hands him the money right now.

I love analogies. 🙂

Betsy
 
Here is an article I found on-line by a Protestant and his explanation of temporal punishment. Is it true that we teach the punishment is vinidicatory?

I know this is getting a bit into apologetics, but how would you answer some of his charges at the end of the article? i.e. by making prayer a “penance” we make it seem like a punishment rather than a joy. To me, anyone who has spent any time in prayer knows that it is both. It is a joy to lift our hearts and minds to God. It is a penance because it takes practice and effort to remain there. In a way we ‘punish’ ourselves, though I think discipline is a more accurate word, by forcing our wayward thoughts to focus and refocus on God.

Here is the link to his article: justforcatholics.org/a166.htm

PS Thanks for all your answers this far. It’s been very helpful.
Hi toknowservelove 👋

This is only my personal opinion, but I wouldn’t bother answering those charges. I used to, but I found the more that I did it, the better I became at tripping people up. At that point I had to wonder whether I was trying more to defend or to win an argument - that isn’t a particularly healthy environment for fostering charity. :doh2:

I even tried just finding things to agree with Protestants, but with some of them, sooner or later a new charge against Catholic belief would be leveled. When another Christian busies themselves with attacking Catholic beliefs in order to try and justify their own way of believing, it is usually an indicator that what their own belief is founded on is quite frail.
Ultimately I asked myself the question: If I destroy their beliefs while arguing with them, what will they have left to believe ?

They don’t have the fullness of truth and they don’t have all the sacraments (I don’t know how anyone can survive without the sacrament of Reconciliation - I need it so badly sometimes). So I consider it as if they have to argue from a wounded perspective (even if they decide to bleed all over us sometimes).

That being said, there are also the professional anti-Catholics - the ones who make their living from attacking “Romanism” . They can be pretty abrasive and would seem to see it as their God -given duty to attack our beliefs. They are only able to argue sola scriptura, because they have no magisterium. They will usually only accept quotes from the King James Version of the bible. Unfortunately, the books of Maccabees which are canonical books of Catholic bibles are not included/accepted in the King James version. Part of the proof of Purgatory is taken from the books of Maccabees. Here’s a nice little Catholic Answers article which will give you an idea of what you’re looking at in the article you linked 3 posts ago:
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

That article you linked is rife with errors but I don’t know if anyone would be able to explain it from a Catholic perspective to them. If someone does not have the sacrament of Reconciliation , they have to try and find another explanation of forgiveness, absolution, expiation. You would be giving them Catholic dots, but because they would be connecting those dots with a Protestant pencil, they would still get the figure all wrong.

Here’s an example of one error from the many in the article:

The author says ,as he is concluding : “Catholics live under the cloud of punishment yet to be experienced which keeps them separated from God.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. We can have intimate union with God who is truly, substantially, entirely and personally present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the consecrated Eucharistic species every time we receive holy Communion. But when you quote, John 6:56 to the sola scripturist …
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him.” … they will answer you with a different interpretation of it - because they don’t have the Blessed Sacrament - so they try to explain it another way… sad really … if we think about it.

Even the sacrament of reconciliation gives us another type of intimate union with God:

CCC 1468 “The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship.” Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament."

If you were to read about three and a half pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
beginning here vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P4D.HTM then click “next” and read the next couple of pages, it will bring you to indulgences. Everything is concise and uncomplicated. I think it will give you everything you need to grasp the concepts of contrition, confession, satisfaction and indulgences - you get the whole picture that way.

This interpretation of the broken window analogy given by baltobetsy is the same one I 'm familiar with
It’s going to cost a certain amount of money to fix the window, and the boy will be doing odd jobs for quite a while to earn it. An indulgence hands him the money right now.

I love analogies. 🙂

Betsy
I would just add that when you gain a plenary indulgence and have perfect contrition in your heart, you can ask God , “Is the window paid for now ?” , and He will reply, "What window ? ! "
🙂
 
Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God’s commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one’s fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment.

But if we speak of the removal of sin as to the stain, it is evident that the stain of sin cannot be removed from the soul, without the soul being united to God, since it was through being separated from Him that it suffered the loss of its brightness, in which the stain consists, as stated above (Question 86, Article 1). Now man is united to God by his will. Wherefore the stain of sin cannot be removed from man, unless his will accept the order of Divine justice, that is to say, unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. Now when punishment is satisfactory, it loses somewhat of the nature of punishment: for the nature of punishment is to be against the will; and although satisfactory punishment, absolutely speaking, is against the will, nevertheless in this particular case and for this particular purpose, it is voluntary. Consequently it is voluntary simply, but involuntary in a certain respect, as we have explained when speaking of the voluntary and the involuntary (6, 6). We must, therefore, say that, when the stain of sin has been removed, there may remain a debt of punishment, not indeed of punishment simply, but of satisfactory punishment.

. . . The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man.

. . . When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the example of David quoted above.

. . . It is written (Isaiah 3:10-11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”

. . . We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society.

. . . indulgences hold good both in the Church’s court and in the judgment of God, for the remission of the punishment which remains after contrition, absolution, and confession, whether this punishment be enjoined or not. The reason why they so avail is the oneness of the mystical body in which many have performed works of satisfaction exceeding the requirements of their debts; in which, too, many have patiently borne unjust tribulations whereby a multitude of punishments would have been paid, had they been incurred. So great is the quantity of such merits that it exceeds the entire debt of punishment due to those who are living at this moment: and this is especially due to the merits of Christ: for though He acts through the sacraments, yet His efficacy is nowise restricted to them, but infinitely surpasses their efficacy.
 
Now one man can satisfy for another, as we have explained above (Question 13, Article 2). And the saints in whom this super-abundance of satisfactions is found, did not perform their good works for this or that particular person, who needs the remission of his punishment (else he would have received this remission without any indulgence at all), but they performed them for the whole Church in general, even as the Apostle declares that he fills up “those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ . . . for His body, which is the Church” to whom he wrote (Colossians 1:24). These merits, then, are the common property of the whole Church. Now those things which are the common property of a number are distributed to the various individuals according to the judgment of him who rules them all. Hence, just as one man would obtain the remission of his punishment if another were to satisfy for him, so would he too if another’s satisfactions be applied to him by one who has the power to do so.

. . . The remission which is granted by means of indulgences does not destroy the proportion between punishment and sin, since someone has spontaneously taken upon himself the punishment due for another’s guilt, as explained above.

. . . He who gains an indulgence is not, strictly speaking, absolved from the debt of punishment, but is given the means whereby he may pay it.

St. Thomas Aquinas (see the rest of the Summa for the surrounding text)

St. Anselm of Canterbury in his book ‘Why God Became Man’'s middle chapters discusses Divine Justice in one of the best ways I’ve ever read it.
 
I went to a Catholic school and I never heard of temporal punishment. In fact, I find this whole thing just fruitless. I read this and thought, how in the world can I ever get to Heaven when I can go to confession and even though I’m forgiven, I still can’t go to Heaven. I feel like its hopeless.

So answer me this. Protestants don’t have to worry about it, because they don’t believe what we do? So they just get a free pass because they don’t know any better?

And if nobody went to Heaven before Jesus died, then where did everybody go from the beginning of time til then?
 
I went to a Catholic school and I never heard of temporal punishment. In fact, I find this whole thing just fruitless. I read this and thought, how in the world can I ever get to Heaven when I can go to confession and even though I’m forgiven, I still can’t go to Heaven. I feel like its hopeless.

So answer me this. Protestants don’t have to worry about it, because they don’t believe what we do? So they just get a free pass because they don’t know any better?

And if nobody went to Heaven before Jesus died, then where did everybody go from the beginning of time til then?
Temporal punishment has nothing to do with going to Hell. We don’t go to Hell by accumulating temporal punishment. Temporal punishment is what lands us in Purgatory. Everyone who goes to Purgatory ends up in Heaven. There is no need to feel hopeless.
 
I went to a Catholic school and I never heard of temporal punishment. In fact, I find this whole thing just fruitless. I read this and thought, how in the world can I ever get to Heaven when I can go to confession and even though I’m forgiven, I still can’t go to Heaven. I feel like its hopeless.

So answer me this. Protestants don’t have to worry about it, because they don’t believe what we do? So they just get a free pass because they don’t know any better?

And if nobody went to Heaven before Jesus died, then where did everybody go from the beginning of time til then?
 
@ Maryk123 : Hi

It might be more fruitful to decide which of your questions is the most important to you, then figure out a title, and start a new thread beginning with something similar to your first post on this thread . There’s no guarantee, but the responses you’d receive would likely be more geared to your own questions - particularly if you can make the questions clear.

The moderators usually encourage us to go in that direction rather than resurrecting old threads. There is a “sticky” notice posted right at the top of the Traditional Catholicism forums to that effect… can be read here - Resurrecting Old Threads

In the meantime , maybe this article (it’s nice and brief) can help fill in a gap or two.

Assigned Penance in the Sacrament of Confession ; by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top