Indulgences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_LaRock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tantum ergo:
One poster provided an excellent article from our very own CA library that explained exactly what happened when, how, and by whom. . .

and yet we still hear, “the church DID TOO sell indulgences and it does even TODAY, you big cover-uppers you”. 😃
With all due respect that article completely leaves out Pope Leo’s involvement in the selling of indulgences through alms giving, it isn’t even addressed.

Your analogy is a poor one, sexual molestation will never be thought of as doctrine. Selling indulgences through alms giving was, clearly and historically.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
Just read any reputable historian on the Protestant Reformation. The Pope authorized the selling of indulgences, call it alms giving, call it whatever you want. The Catholic Church sanctioned the selling of indulgences. I don’t like talking to Mormons when they try to rewrite history, I dislike it even more when Catholics do it. We sold indulgences, it was wrong, and we don’t do it anymore.

"Sale of Indulgences. The RC hierarchy also claimed to have access to a repository of “excess good deeds” performed by the saints which could be used to liberate souls from Purgatory before the expiration of their appointed sentence there. The good deeds which saints of the Church had performed in excess of those that were required of them to enter Heaven, went into a sort of bank account which could be drawn upon by the Church to make up for the lack of good deeds by those who were less virtuous than saints, and who, therefore, found themselves in Purgatory.
When the Church found itself in need of funds to complete the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, it sent out salesmen to regional fairs and pilgrimage sites to sell indulgences. Indulgences were printed up by intinerant printers using the newly invented printing presses of the time. It is said, even, that the first advertising jingle of modern times comes from this period. Roughly translated it reads: “When a coin into the coinbox rings, a soul from Purgatory soon will spring.” Such excesses constituted the spark that ignited the Reformation. "

humboldt.edu/~wh1/466.Reformation/466.RCDoctrine.html#indulgences

I know indulgences weren’t the ‘only’ reason for the reformation, but it was the major reason. Without indulgences the reformation never happens.

If we didn’t sell indulgences, there’s no need to address the issue and stop sanctioning the practice during the Council or Trent and Counter-Reformmation.

I don’t like arguing counter to the Catholic position, so I won’t, but I think spinning and denial just muddies the waters, and is disingenuous.
Mike,

You’re quoting the Humbolt University website as your reputable source??? Are you joking???

For those of you who are unaware, Humboldt is a state university up in northern California with a total of 7,550 students.

The very fact that your quote uses the term “salesmen” discredits the source.

Let me rephrase, Mike: quote a real textbook, not some little college website. Give us a title, a quote, etc.
 
40.png
Batjacboy:
Mike,

You’re quoting the Humbolt University website as your reputable source??? Are you joking???

For those of you who are unaware, Humboldt is a state university up in northern California with a total of 7,550 students.

The very fact that your quote uses the term “salesmen” discredits the source.

Let me rephrase, Mike: quote a real textbook, not some little college website. Give us a title, a quote, etc.
No, I don’t want to see evidence from a textbook. I want to see the Papal decree that authorized the selling of indulgences. If the sale of induldences is such a well known fact, and since it was “the main reason” behind the Protestant Reformation, the decree should be easy enough to locate.
 
Ooops… I stand corrected:o .

The Catholic Church does not now or has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered that they go astray.”

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses: Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences be blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentarium Doctrina (cf. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980], 62-79).
 
Chris LaRock:
Does the Roman Catholic Church still offer to get people’s dead loved ones out of purgatory for a price?
Never did. An indulgence is only valid if the person who gains the indulgence is sacrificying something and is already repentent and has already had the sacrament of reconciliation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

It is also quite interesting how a lot of Protestants condemned the Church for the abuse of “selling” indulgences, however now days there are many more abuses coming from the Protestant side which DWARF any Catholic abuse in the 15th and 16th centuries. Tune into any “Christian” television station and you will hear all kinds of Protestant pastors talking about “sewing” money into the network or whatever and how God will multiply their money.

God bless!
 
40.png
mtr01:
No, I don’t want to see evidence from a textbook. I want to see the Papal decree that authorized the selling of indulgences. If the sale of induldences is such a well known fact, and since it was “the main reason” behind the Protestant Reformation, the decree should be easy enough to locate.
Oh, man, mtr01, you’re so much better at this than I am.

I guess this is why you’re a senior member, and I’m just a regular one. 😃
 
I don’t mention “Pope Leo’s involvement in selling indulgences” because Pope Leo never taught that indulgences was Catholic doctrine/dogma/discipline.

I prefer my information from a historian like, oh, Hillaire Belloc, or H.W. Crocker. . .
 
Could anyone explain to me in a simplified manner what indulegences are in the first place? I know that they are used to get ppl out of purgatory or limbo…err wait, limbo is where unbaptised babies go…

I’m Eastern Orthodox and we have something similar but also quite different to indulgences. There have been accounts of martyrs dying and then appearing to people afterwards and saying things to the effect that if ppl asked for the martyr’s prayers, they will not be left alone at the time of death, they will overcome their difficulties etc. But I’m not sure how this coincides with the wester notion of indulgences.

thnx,
AA (arch angelorum)
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
Could anyone explain to me in a simplified manner what indulegences are in the first place? I know that they are used to get ppl out of purgatory or limbo…err wait, limbo is where unbaptised babies go…

I’m Eastern Orthodox and we have something similar but also quite different to indulgences. There have been accounts of martyrs dying and then appearing to people afterwards and saying things to the effect that if ppl asked for the martyr’s prayers, they will not be left alone at the time of death, they will overcome their difficulties etc. But I’m not sure how this coincides with the wester notion of indulgences.

thnx,
Code:
      AA (arch angelorum)
AA,

Go to this site–it’s simple and straightforward:

truecatholic.org/baltp3.htm#Lesson33
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
Could anyone explain to me in a simplified manner what indulegences are in the first place? I know that they are used to get ppl out of purgatory or limbo…err wait, limbo is where unbaptised babies go…

I’m Eastern Orthodox and we have something similar but also quite different to indulgences. There have been accounts of martyrs dying and then appearing to people afterwards and saying things to the effect that if ppl asked for the martyr’s prayers, they will not be left alone at the time of death, they will overcome their difficulties etc. But I’m not sure how this coincides with the wester notion of indulgences.

thnx,

AA (arch angelorum)
Limbo is a philisophical idea, and was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church. I personally do not believe in limbo, and am in good standing with the Catholic Church. Now for indulgences, an indulgence removes the temporal punishment of sin if the person has already received absolution from a priest and has been to the sacrament of reconciliation. Even though you may have already received an absolution, you may still suffer the effects of that sin and in order to see the face of God you must be cleansed of ALL effects of your previous sins. An indulgence depending on whether it’s plenary or partial, will remove all temporal punishment for that sin. A simple analogy: a person who has been an alcoholic all their life and abused alcohol may have recently gone sober and received an absolution from the priest. He may still be tempted to drink though, and if he dies while he is still tempted, his soul will still be tainted because he will still desire the drink. In order to enter heaven, all that you must desire is God and your soul must have no earthly attachments to receive the Beatific Vision (Heaven).

See also: google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp&e=9797

The Eastern Orthodox had a similar practice of indulgences up until about 100 years ago which was called “Absolution Certificates”.
 
Just a side note… Humbolt University is infamous for its large amount of marjuana groves. The fact that Humbolt was quoted made me laugh! In High School, all the stoners bought their weed from Humbolt (I grew up in Northern CA). Just thought you all might find that interesting.
 
Semper Fi:
A simple analogy: a person who has been an alcoholic all their life and abused alcohol may have recently gone sober and received an absolution from the priest. He may still be tempted to drink though, and if he dies while he is still tempted, his soul will still be tainted because he will still desire the drink. In order to enter heaven, all that you must desire is God and your soul must have no earthly attachments to receive the Beatific Vision (Heaven).
Good analogy.

Here’s another one, for what it’s worth:

Your soul is like a plank of wood.

When you’re born, it has those “knots” in it–that’s original sin.

At baptism, the knots are wiped away, and your plank is perfect.

Every time you commit a venial sin, it’s like hammering a nail into the plank.

Every time you commit a mortal sin, it’s like hammering a railroad spike into the plank, which makes a larger hole, and sends cracks radiating up and down the plank.

Confession removes the nails and the spikes, but the holes remain.

No one can enter heaven without the plank being perfect again.

Sacrifices/suffering (temporal punishment), whether in this life, or in purgatory, fills the holes and the cracks.

Now, the suffering can certainly be voluntary and self-imposed; in fact, that’s encouraged. That’s where indulgences fit in. They’re the sacrifices that repair the damage after the sins have been forgiven in Confession.
 
mortal, venial: I don’t get it??? I know mortal means you’re alive. …I have no clue what a venial sin is…it reminds me of veins.

thnx for the websites I will check it out.
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
mortal, venial: I don’t get it??? I know mortal means you’re alive. …I have no clue what a venial sin is…it reminds me of veins.

thnx for the websites I will check it out.
For mortal/venial sins, read this
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
mortal, venial: I don’t get it??? I know mortal means you’re alive. …I have no clue what a venial sin is…it reminds me of veins.

thnx for the websites I will check it out.
A mortal sin is a sin when these 3 conditions are met:


  1. *]its subject must be ‘grave matter’;
    *]it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
    *]it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

    A venial sin is a sin when these 3 conditions are met:

    1. *]it does not concern a “grave matter”,
      *]it is not committed with full knowledge, or
      *]it is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.
 
40.png
Batjacboy:
For mortal/venial sins, read this
While the Baltimore Catechism on that site is generally good, you should not be quoting that site. It is operated by schismatics who have elected their own “trailer park pope”.

God bless!
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
Could anyone explain to me in a simplified manner what indulegences are in the first place? I know that they are used to get ppl out of purgatory or limbo…err wait, limbo is where unbaptised babies go…

I’m Eastern Orthodox and we have something similar but also quite different to indulgences. There have been accounts of martyrs dying and then appearing to people afterwards and saying things to the effect that if ppl asked for the martyr’s prayers, they will not be left alone at the time of death, they will overcome their difficulties etc. But I’m not sure how this coincides with the wester notion of indulgences.

thnx,

AA (arch angelorum)
One more thing that I would like to add to what I said previously: a person can apply the indulgence to a person “in” purgatory (purgatory isn’t necessarily a physical plane or place, but a process that a soul goes through before they can enter Heaven if they have ANY attachment left to sin), or they can apply it to themselves. In order to properly understand indulgences you have to realize that it is all about self-sacrifice to please God.

God bless.

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

You should read this about Purgatory.
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
mortal, venial: I don’t get it??? I know mortal means you’re alive. …I have no clue what a venial sin is…it reminds me of veins.

thnx for the websites I will check it out.
I know you are probably thinking that sin is sin, and that is true, but some sins are worse than others…

“If anyone sees his brother commit sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death” (1 John 5:16-17)

Mortal sins are sins that lead to death. Venial sins are sins that lead us off course from God but we can get back on track. Read this good article for more info…
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

–Rebecca
 
Semper Fi:
While the Baltimore Catechism on that site is generally good, you should not be quoting that site. It is operated by schismatics who have elected their own “trailer park pope”.

God bless!
Did you know technically that guy is the anti-pope? To me it is pretty amazing! I wonder how many other anti-popes there are right now…
 
40.png
Batjacboy:
Exactly.

Not with the official endorsement or approval of the Church, and contrary to the Church’s teaching and intent.
Good to hear that. I have heard that one of Luther’s reasons for protesting the church was the sale of indulgances. I wasn’t aware it was done by rouge individuals acting on thier own. What I’d like to know next, what steps did Rome take to put an end to this activity?

My issue with indulgances is the idea that one can sway God’s judgements with money. If God alone decides how long anyone stays in purgatory, it would be equal to calling Him corrupt for a man to think he can bribe God. So, my precieved sarcasm was just me asking a question while showing my disapproval of indulgances - and not disgust with the Church itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top