Indulgences - when did they start?

[SonofMonica]

Hi,

Not interested in the theological justification or underpinnings for indulgences. Just wondering if anyone can point me to the documentation or explanation on the earliest use of them.

Thanks in advance.

 

[promethius]

Hi,

Not interested in the theological justification or underpinnings for indulgences. Just wondering if anyone can point me to the documentation or explanation on the earliest use of them.

Thanks in advance.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, the first indulgence was granted by a bishop… St. Paul in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 2. Quoted text:
That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul’s words (2 Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incest man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many” and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority – “in the person of Christ.” Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.

 

[SonofMonica]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, the first indulgence was granted by a bishop… St. Paul in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 2. Quoted text:
That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul’s words (2 Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incest man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many” and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority – “in the person of Christ.” Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.

Doesn’t that verse seem like it’s talking about forgiveness of sins, and not indulgences for temporal punishments? What am I missing?

 

[promethius]

Doesn’t that verse seem like it’s talking about forgiveness of sins, and not indulgences for temporal punishments? What am I missing?

Nope. As the article says, the man in question had already repented and (presumably) received absolution for his sin. What paul did was to pardon the temporal punishment for the sin. That’s what is characteristic of an indulgence.

 

[xpistou]

The use of the indulgence goes back to the 1000’s A.D. However, the history of the indulgence is much older. In the early church, serious sin, after becoming a Christian, was seen as a serious rupture between the individual and God, as well as between the individual and the community. There was a very real sense that salvation came by being part of the community of believers, the body of Christ. It is important to keep this in mind: the individual had a relationship to God and to the community, both were intimately related.

In the early church we have examples of radical groups, such as the Donatists, who claimed that denying Christ publicly, even if you were facing death, meant that you were no longer a Christian. We also have early councils deciding which sins excluded one from the community for life and which could be remedied by long penances. For example, in 306 A.D. the council of Elvira says that a woman who beats and kills her servant must undergo seven years of penance, and parents who allow their daughter to marry a pagan priest were excluded from the community for life.

Even though the penance for a given sin might have been eating only bread and water for five years, the community understood that it could transfer the penance to something else if need be. For example, if a person could not physically endure eating only bread and water, then perhaps he could wear a rough wool shirt for five years instead. The church came to realize that it had control over the types and durations of penance. The church, that is, the community of believers, also came to realize that prayer to God on behalf of its sinful members was powerful and effective. Remember the individual had sinned not only against the body of Christ, but against Christ himself.

It was this joint realization that the church had influence with God on behalf of its sinful members and that the church could modify penances as needed that led to the rise of the indulgence. Now, instead of repenting from your sin and having to do penance for seven years, you could repent of your sin and go on a pilgrimage or help to build the church in your town.

What I have said above is the historical story of how indulgences arose; the theological justification for indulgences came after they were already in use. However, I think your question was one of history not theology.

Yours in Christ.

 

[SonofMonica]

Nope. As the article says, the man in question had already repented and (presumably) received absolution for his sin. What paul did was to pardon the temporal punishment for the sin. That’s what is characteristic of an indulgence.

That is what the article says. I was talking about the verse of scripture itself. I am implying that the article’s reading of the verse doesn’t seem to match my reading, and I’m asking for your opinion on that. Thanks.

 

[SonofMonica]

The use of the indulgence goes back to the 1000’s A.D.

Do you know where I can find information on this?

What I have said above is the historical story of how indulgences arose; the theological justification for indulgences came after they were already in use. However, I think your question was one of history not theology.

Yes, yes I want to know about when indulgences first began being used. But I guess on a theological point, you’re saying that indulgences are nothing but a positive form of penance, right? If we can take that to its logical conclusion then I guess it’s a lot easier to trace historical use. There seems to be something missing from that analysis though, and that’s the fact that the indulgence is not preceding by sacramental confession.

 

[xpistou]

Dear SonofMonica,

Do you know where I can find information on this?

I have been reading “History of the Church” by Jedin volume 5, pages 42-48 on indulgences. However, the information is limited. Let me see if I can find more info.

There seems to be something missing from that analysis though, and that’s the fact that the indulgence is not preceding by sacramental confession.

An indulgence does not mean that you do not have to repent of your sin and be truly sorry. This was one of Martin Luthers early complaints, namely, that the indulgence preachers made it sound as if you could purchase an indulgence without being contrite. Luther was angry at this, and he was right. In fact, much of what the early Luther had to say about indulgences was spot on. Luther had no problem with indulgences as such, he had problems with their abuse and the theologically unsound indulgence preachers who were traveling through Germany trying to raise money for the church.

Yours in Christ.

 

[SonofMonica]

I have been reading “History of the Church” by Jedin volume 5, pages 42-48 on indulgences. However, the information is limited. Let me see if I can find more info.

Thanks, xpistou. I appreciate it. If you find a good resource, let me know. It may not be as easy as posting a quote from an Early Church Father. So I understand if you just have to point me to a book or something. Although, the lack of readily accessible quotes might cause me to believe that early support for indulgences is not that strong as compared to, say, early belief in the Sacrifice of the Mass or Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

An indulgence does not mean that you do not have to repent of your sin and be truly sorry. This was one of Martin Luthers early complaints, namely, that the indulgence preachers made it sound as if you could purchase an indulgence without being contrite. Luther was angry at this, and he was right. In fact, much of what the early Luther had to say about indulgences was spot on. Luther had no problem with indulgences as such, he had problems with their abuse and the theologically unsound indulgence preachers who were traveling through Germany trying to raise money for the church.

Yeah, I get this part. Folks were abusing it, but this does not mean that all indulgences are bad. It was the abuse of indulgences, not the concept of proper indulgences, that Luther had a problem with. That’s fine.

I am just wondering at what point the Church started granting “proper” (non-abusive) indulgences in the first place. I believe I understand the theological basis for them, but I don’t see it in scripture and haven’t been exposed to any Early Church Fathers talking about them, that I recall.

It would seem rather shaky if the abuses started happening about the same time that indulgences started arriving on the scene. That might cause one to think that there were not a lot of “proper” indulgences at first, and that the “modern” concept of indulgences only came about as a result of the Reformation. I’m just speculating, though. I really do want to learn.

Pax.

 

[xpistou]

I am just wondering at what point the Church started granting “proper” (non-abusive) indulgences in the first place.

That might cause one to think that there were not a lot of “proper” indulgences at first, and that the “modern” concept of indulgences only came about as a result of the Reformation. I’m just speculating, though. I really do want to learn.

SonofMonica,

Several history books point to Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont in 1095 A.D. as giving the first indulgence. Unfortunately, this ‘first’ indulgence comes in the context of the first crusade, and one might wonder whether granting an indulgence to those sent to kill is not an abuse in the first instance.

However, the right idea is there. The council of Clermont stated, “To whoever solely out of religious devotion and not for acquiring honour or wealth proceeds to liberate the church of God at Jerusalem his journey will count for all penance.” We can ask, was this the first indulgence? I suspect that there were some other examples in the decades leading up to 1095, of which there is no historical record.

As far as I can tell, there were other examples of ‘proper’ indulgences throughout the centuries, for example the jubilee year 1300.

The abuses of indulgences arose later. In 1309 the popes left Rome to take up residence in Avignon. This had dire consequences for the city of Rome itself. Rome was largely abandoned, and the buildings, streets etc, fell into utter ruin. But even when the Popes returned to Rome 70 years later, the great schism began which led to three popes claiming the chair of Peter. All of this was not settled until 1415; at this time Rome and even the church itself was in a sorry condition.

The 1400’s in Italy was also the time of the Renaissance. The popes became much more worldly and concerned with beauty, art, and wealth. This concern for art combined with a city in ruins led the Popes to embark on a massive building campaign, which would require tons of money. This then led to the abuse of indulgences.

Yours in Christ.

 

[SonofMonica]

SonofMonica,

Several history books point to Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont in 1095 A.D. as giving the first indulgence. Unfortunately, this ‘first’ indulgence comes in the context of the first crusade, and one might wonder whether granting an indulgence to those sent to kill is not an abuse in the first instance.

However, the right idea is there. The council of Clermont stated, “To whoever solely out of religious devotion and not for acquiring honour or wealth proceeds to liberate the church of God at Jerusalem his journey will count for all penance.” We can ask, was this the first indulgence? I suspect that there were some other examples in the decades leading up to 1095, of which there is no historical record.

As far as I can tell, there were other examples of ‘proper’ indulgences throughout the centuries, for example the jubilee year 1300.

The abuses of indulgences arose later. In 1309 the popes left Rome to take up residence in Avignon. This had dire consequences for the city of Rome itself. Rome was largely abandoned, and the buildings, streets etc, fell into utter ruin. But even when the Popes returned to Rome 70 years later, the great schism began which led to three popes claiming the chair of Peter. All of this was not settled until 1415; at this time Rome and even the church itself was in a sorry condition.

The 1400’s in Italy was also the time of the Renaissance. The popes became much more worldly and concerned with beauty, art, and wealth. This concern for art combined with a city in ruins led the Popes to embark on a massive building campaign, which would require tons of money. This then led to the abuse of indulgences.

Yours in Christ.

Thanks for your honesty, clarity and scholarship! Welcome to the board, by the way

Can you suggest some good history books that talk about this stuff? It sounds quite interesting to me, from a historical standpoint.

Back to the original question, maybe if we had some record of whether or not anyone objected to the authority or theological basis for the “first indulgence” you mention in 1095, we could know whether or not it was truly a new concept. Of course, if there was a lot of abuse going on with authority and power in the Church at that time, it seems like we wouldn’t be able to find much record of that.

I’m not fingerpointing, but I would like to find more resources on this.

 

[mardukm]

I know for a fact that St. Basil in the mid-4th century spoke specifically of indulgences to relieve punishment after evidence of repentance. I’ll get a direct quote for you when I have more time (and perhaps other quotes from the Church Fathers).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[promethius]

An indulgence does not mean that you do not have to repent of your sin and be truly sorry.

That is patently an inaccurate statement. It may be that someone pitched that as an idea when indulgences were abused, but the specific purpose of an indulgence is to remit the temporal punishment of sins. That means that indulgence is a change to PENANCE, and penance only. This means that in order for temporal punishment to be remitted, the sins involved must be confessed and absolved, and that REQUIRES repentence and contrition.

 

[promethius]

That is what the article says. I was talking about the verse of scripture itself. I am implying that the article’s reading of the verse doesn’t seem to match my reading, and I’m asking for your opinion on that. Thanks.

1 Cor 5, the man is ordered punished for his sins.
2 Cor 2, the man is trying to get back into the faith and Paul does not want him discouraged, so he pardons the man’s punishment.

The scripture reads exactly as the article portrays it. Indulgence is a remittance of temporal punishment and this fits all the technical bills of that nature.

 

[xpistou]

Thanks for your honesty, clarity and scholarship! Welcome to the board, by the way

Thanks it’s good to be here.

Can you suggest some good history books that talk about this stuff? It sounds quite interesting to me, from a historical standpoint.

So far the best history of the church I have found is “History of the Church” by Jedin in 10 volumes. Unfortunately, I only have a few of the volumes. Another good one, and much more manageable in terms of size is “A History of the Church in the Middle Ages” by Logan. This is very good, very scholarly, but consice.

Back to the original question, maybe if we had some record of whether or not anyone objected to the authority or theological basis for the “first indulgence” you mention in 1095, we could know whether or not it was truly a new concept. Of course, if there was a lot of abuse going on with authority and power in the Church at that time, it seems like we wouldn’t be able to find much record of that.

Both in Jedin volume 5–the reformation–and in “Fundamental of Catholic Dogma” by Ott I see the same idea, namely, that the church in the early middle ages had something called “absolutions” and these “absolutions” transformed into our modern “indulgences”. I think this is the key. I have never heard of “absolutions”, but apparently they are the ancient church’s form of indulgences. If I have time I will try to do some more research.

Your in Christ.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, I would like to know how formulas of reading so many passages of scripture became indulgences and why, and if you pray x amount of times you earn an indulgence of X amount of days from purgatory.
What basis was used to formulate the exact number of days off purgatory for saying prayers so many times, or for reading the bible so many verses or minutes of the day?
Any ideas how these precise numbers were attained?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just an FYI, even the Old Covenant had the seeds for indulgences, for example in the famous “Purgatory” apologetic verse in 2 Maccabees:2 Maccabees 12:43-45 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead,* that they might be delivered from their sin**.*However, the OP said he was not looking for “underpinnings” for indulgences, so I’m not sure that qualifies.

Here’s an article giving some history too, including a breakdown of the 2 Corinthians passage mentioned earlier.

 

[SonofMonica]

Just an FYI, even the Old Covenant had the seeds for indulgences, for example in the famous “Purgatory” apologetic verse in 2 Maccabees:2 Maccabees 12:43-45 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead,** that they might be delivered from their sin**.However, the OP said he was not looking for “underpinnings” for indulgences, so I’m not sure that qualifies.

Here’s an article giving some history too, including a breakdown of the 2 Corinthians passage mentioned earlier.

No, I think that’s a good example of not just a theological justification, but also an example of someone acting on it. Sometimes I read that passage as a theological underpinning for the existence of an intermediate state, or purgatory, but I forget that he’s actually praying for the dead to be relieved of punishment of sin. Indulgences and purgatory are two very interlinked concepts.

However, I’m more interested in what StrawberryJam is talking about, and that is, when did the Church start saying, “If you do X, you get Y number of Z.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, I think that’s a good example of not just a theological justification, but also an example of someone acting on it. Sometimes I read that passage as a theological underpinning for the existence of an intermediate state, or purgatory, but I forget that he’s actually praying for the dead to be relieved of punishment of sin. Indulgences and purgatory are two very interlinked concepts.

However, I’m more interested in what StrawberryJam is talking about, and that is, when did the Church start saying, “If you do X, you get Y number of Z.”

Thanks for being interested SonofMonica. I have seen a catholic bible that my room mate has with the list of indulgences in it. I don’t know if there are other sources of information but this bible has a ton of them listed for reciting certian prayers so many times and for reading the bible. It is very very precise on how many days you get for saying them.

Some prayers get more days than other ones.

 

[SonofMonica]

Thanks for being interested SonofMonica. I have seen a catholic bible that my room mate has with the list of indulgences in it. I don’t know if there are other sources of information but this bible has a ton of them listed for reciting certian prayers so many times and for reading the bible. It is very very precise on how many days you get for saying them.

Some prayers get more days than other ones.

Yes, my grandmother has an old Missal, and it prescribes certain prayers and grants certain numbers of days for them. This is the practice that I’m asking about in the OP. I would like to know when it started. I understand that the Catholic position would be that the Church’s power over the reconciliation/confession/absolution of sins would pretty much grant it carte blanche in this area, but I would like to see when the Church “realized that” and started this specific practice.