Indulgences, the Treasury of Merits and EC's

[Aramis]

On the Social Engineering side of things:

My mother, still a Latin-Riter, was complaining that we (my wife, kids, and I) do not do enough together.

I had decided, with my wife, that the early vigil DL of the Nativity at the mission at 6PM was the appropriate one due to our children; Christmas Morning would be at least 2 hours (Matins and St Basil), and they cop out at about 1:15… and the Christmas eve later DL was too late, being at 10:30PM, and being vespers and St Basil, likely to be 2 hours as well. So…

We invited Mom to join us; Dad was to be assisting at Mass at midnight and 10AM at their parish, so we didn’t expect him to come. (He’s a Latin-Rite Deacon, for those who don’t already know. He also long considered the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church… Mom wasn’t so sure.)

Mom waffled…I pointed out that it is a minor indulgence to go to a different parish or mission for the first time. Hook! We picked her up, and Dad opted to join us. For the first time in more than 5 years, we sat as a family of 3 generations, together.

To those versed in the Roman concept of Purgatory and temporal punishment therein, an indulgence is a good motivator. Dad needed no hook to go. Mom went because of the hook of shaving some time off of purgatory. Dad went because he loves the liturgy, didn’t have to drive, and because it was a Family Gathering.

So, as social engineering goes, it works.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have not started a thread in months, so please forgive my bluntness.

As Eastern Catholics, are we expected to belief in Indulgences and a Treasury of Merits as expressed in Latin theology. The reason I ask is that I have never heard of them and I know they are absent from Orthodox theology. The term “merits” is likewise absent from all Eastern expressions of faith…Thank you for your help…

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Alexius can you give us a little more on your understanding of the “Treasury of merits”?

This got brought up on a nother forum not long ago and a priest friend of mine responded:

Catholic theologians haven’t used the term “merit” in forty years. It is a problematic term. If you want to know what has happened to that term, go read the Joint Declaration on Justification. Otherwise, I would advise against bringing such terminology up.

and

Merit is a problematic term. While it is part of the theological inheritance of Trent, it is a term that has really been abandoned in the Catholic theology of the past 40 years.

Merit in Catholic theology does not mean what it means in Webster’s Dictionary. As a theological term it presupposes the grace of God and indicates that our cooperation with God’s grace is an occasion of receiving further grace.

I may not travel in the most sophisticated theological circles, but I can’t tell you the last time I heard “Treasuty of Merits” ANYWHERE but in the context of an East/West polemic or “old school” true-believing Lutheran apologists… And when it is brought up in those contexts, I have never gotten the impression it was very well presented.

 

[jimmy]

Please enlighten me then.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.

Show me where in that sentence it mentions anything about Treasury of merits or indulgences. It doesn’t mention either. I don’t know what you need enlightened about.

 

[Alexius]

Alexius can you give us a little more on your understanding of the “Treasury of merits”?

This got brought up on a nother forum not long ago and a priest friend of mine responded:

and

I may not travel in the most sophisticated theological circles, but I can’t tell you the last time I heard “Treasuty of Merits” ANYWHERE but in the context of an East/West polemic or “old school” true-believing Lutheran apologists… And when it is brought up in those contexts, I have never gotten the impression it was very well presented.

Well, that’s news to me! Merits was a term used in Western Christianity for many centuries…I think the teaching went something like this:

The saints, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, had excess merits (supererogatory works) when they died. As such, these are stored up to be distributed by the Church for the help of others…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[HailMary]

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.

Show me where in that sentence it mentions anything about Treasury of merits or indulgences. It doesn’t mention either. I don’t know what you need enlightened about.

Is faith a merit Jimmy?

 

[jimmy]

Is faith a merit Jimmy?

No.

Even if it were, the quote does not say that there is a treasury from which the Church draws from and applies to individual members of the Church. It simply says that each will be repaid according to his works.

What does it mean to have a treasury of merits anyway? It seems to imply an idea that protestants attack Catholics. They say we believe in a works based salvation. This seems to say that there are so many works that must be done to be saved and the rest are excess.

 

[HailMary]

(3) The Treasury of the Church

Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): “All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull"Unigenitus", published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343 , and later inserted in the “Corpus Juris” (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther’s assertion that “the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints” (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541).
According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[chrisb]

This topic is going to get everyone heated, I have no doubt.

It draws us into a discussion on exactly ‘how’ the Church exercises it’s ability to ‘bind and loose’, western theology on Satisfaction, Supererogatory Works, Merit, etc, etc.

Catholicism is ‘holistic’ and cannot be understood in ‘pieces’.

What I would be curious about is how are these various topics dealt with in Eastern Catholicism (err… Orthodoxy).

 

[Mickey]

IWe simply do not rely on the same mechanisms for distributing ‘New Light’ as the western church does.

Indeed.

 

[chrisb]

Indeed.

Honestly, such comments are not very useful. If you or others are going to criticize Western Theology at least explain Eastern Theology.

 

[Alexius]

This topic is going to get everyone heated, I have no doubt.

It draws us into a discussion on exactly ‘how’ the Church exercises it’s ability to ‘bind and loose’, western theology on Satisfaction, Supererogatory Works, Merit, etc, etc.

Catholicism is ‘holistic’ and cannot be understood in ‘pieces’.

What I would be curious about is how are these various topics dealt with in Eastern Catholicism (err… Orthodoxy).

This whole thread was meant to be about how Easterners are to deal with Indulgences and the Treasury of Merits…

Honestly, such comments are not very useful. If you or others are going to criticize Western Theology at least explain Eastern Theology.

He is affirming Hesychios’ (Michael’s) point that Orthodox and possibly Eastern Catholic’s do use such teachings to explain…

Perhaps Mickey, being a former Ruthenian, can explain his experience with indulgences, etc…???

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Mickey]

Honestly, such comments are not very useful. If you or others are going to criticize Western Theology at least explain Eastern Theology.

Yes. I was affirming Michael’s observations. Sheesh. No need to be so sensitive.

 

[Alexius]

Yes. I was affirming Michael’s observations. Sheesh. No need to be so sensitive.

Did you ever give much thought to indulgences and the Treasury of Merits and how they applied to you as a Ruthenian? On a similar line of thought, were these taught in your parish?

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps Mickey, being a former Ruthenian, can explain his experience with indulgences, etc…???

Yes, Alexius.

I always had a difficult time wrapping my mind around things like indulgences. When I was Ruthenian Catholic, I was told that we are not held to believe in indulgences–we can retain the Orthodox Tradition. Then I was told that being in communion with Rome I must adhere to these beliefs. I became confused. There was an identity crisis for me.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Well, that’s news to me! Merits was a term used in Western Christianity for many centuries…I think the teaching went something like this:

The saints, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, had excess merits (supererogatory works) when they died. As such, these are stored up to be distributed by the Church for the help of others…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Its news to you that this termonology is seldom seen any longer? You see it often outside of these sorts of forums?

Have you per chance in fact looked at the Joint Declaration on Justification?

Worth taking a look at The Treasury of Merit by Taylor Marshall

 

[jj2011]

(3) The Treasury of the Church

Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): “All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity. **The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically **set forth in the Bull"Unigenitus", published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343 , and later inserted in the “Corpus Juris” (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther’s assertion that “the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints” (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541).
According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

If the Church can draw upon the infinite merits of Christ to remit the eternal punishments due to sin, she can do so to remit all or part of the temporal punishments.

That is the notion of the treasury of merits in a nutshell, and it’s holding up quite nicely against the critique offered on this thread.

 

[Alexius]

It is interesting that the use of the term merits has been extinguished. I was sure this was a firm Latin teaching…Interesting also that the Treasury of Merits is still alive, but under a different name. Why the changes?

It still seems foreign to Eastern thought none the less…

 

[chrisb]

It is interesting that the use of the term merits has been extinguished. I was sure this was a firm Latin teaching…Interesting also that the Treasury of Merits is still alive, but under a different name. Why the changes?

It still seems foreign to Eastern thought none the less…

When was it extinguished? The Compendium, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, etc all speak in great detail concerning ‘merit’ and the necessity of purgation through the healing of our Temporal Wounds.

I have never known that Orthodoxy taught that Mystery of Penance exempts the necessity of reparations toward those offended. The Church, as far as I have understood, has never suggested that the forgiveness found in the Mystery of Penance exempts a thief from turning what has been stolen…

Clearly, such is an offense to Justice. Although the Eternal Punishment of Sin maybe forgiven by the Church the Temporal Liability must be satisfied (address or restored). I dare say that one finds the same reasonable understanding within the East in this regard. Justice was not unknown to them on earth or in heaven. Should an individual who abducts one for their pleasure not free them? Is it not just to at least attempt to repair the grave evils unleashed by their evils? The Church’s forgiveness does not remove these evils unleashed and they are the responsibility rests wholly on the penitent as truly contrite to endeavor to the best of his or her ability to satisfy the need of Justice (i.e. to give one their proper due).

 

[Alexius]

When was it extinguished? The Compendium, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, etc all speak in great detail concerning ‘merit’ and the necessity of purgation through the healing of our Temporal Wounds.

I’m confused now…:banghead:

 

[chrisb]

I’m confused now…:banghead:

What is so confusing? You asked 'Why the change?" I simply asked ‘When were they extinguished?’

Everyone of these terms are readily found within all of the references mentioned. I simply saw no creditable rationale to suggest that they have been ‘extinguished’ as you suggested.

Again I ask, When were they extinguished? As I had said in a previous post a great deal of Catholics on this forum are ‘modern’ and simply lack depth in their catechesis to offer up a proper defense for these teachings. They’ve spent far too much time attempting to apologize to protestants that they are ill-prepared to address the faith in it’s fullness. Again it’s a real shame.