Indulgences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_LaRock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
Click to expand...
You are exactly right, Semper Fi. I never actually looked at the site itself. I was looking for the Baltimore Catechism online, the link brought me to the Catechism itself, and I didn’t even realize there was the other stuff on it.

Never again.

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Chris LaRock:
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?.
Click to expand...
Check out the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. The Church was aware of problems, even ones Martin Luther brought up. The Church only insisted he renounce I think 41 of his 95 issues, not all of them. Martin Luther was a revolutionary not a reformer, that Church has had many beloved reformers both before and after Martin Luther. Martin Luther went past reforming and into heresy and apostasy IMO.
 
Chris LaRock:
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.
Click to expand...
Any indulgence that was paid for or ill-gotten would have been invalid from the beginning. Rome had the Counter-Reformation (the Council of Trent) to stop the abuses of the “sale” of indulgences (thus any monetary or alms giving attached to an indulgence would cause a person to be excommunicated).
 
not to defend the what the church did but would not the rich be in a much greater need of indulgences than the poor? The poor would have had a life full of much more suffering than the rich, whose lives probably were good and well off. Therefore, it would be harder for them to get into Heaven as they would have to spend more time in Purgatory than the poor all other things being equal. In today’s world, the good practicing Catholics who are wealthy and perhaps even the not so good Catholics, give thousands of dollars in charity towards the Church in hopes that they will make good use of the money and that their offering will be pleasing to God. While they are not specifically buying indulgences would it not be similar.
 
Chris LaRock:
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?
Click to expand...
Soon after Luther the Church banned the practice of making financial sacrifices for the purpose of gaining indulgences. So now, there’s no money involved, ever.
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As several of the posts have alluded to, it’s all based on making a sacrifice. If there’s no sacrifice, no indulgence can be obtained. What’s great about the Church’s teaching is that those of us on earth can make sacrifices and gain indulgences for souls in Purgatory. It’s a sacrifice, not for ourselves, but for those who can’t help themselves. We’re not bribing God; we’re just helping out those souls, and God will not ignore the sacrifices we make on their behalf.
 
Chris, do you have a better understanding of why the Catholic Church in her mercy grants indulgences?
 
40.png
wjp984:
not to defend the what the church did but would not the rich be in a much greater need of indulgences than the poor? The poor would have had a life full of much more suffering than the rich, whose lives probably were good and well off. Therefore, it would be harder for them to get into Heaven as they would have to spend more time in Purgatory than the poor all other things being equal. In today’s world, the good practicing Catholics who are wealthy and perhaps even the not so good Catholics, give thousands of dollars in charity towards the Church in hopes that they will make good use of the money and that their offering will be pleasing to God. While they are not specifically buying indulgences would it not be similar.
Click to expand...
Rogue priests and bishops did this, not the Church.
 
Semper Fi:
Rogue priests and bishops did this, not the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m beginning to see from the info you all gave.

I guess it was an underhanded attempt to make up for what was lacking in the colloction plate? 😃
 
Chris LaRock:
That’s what I’m beginning to see from the info you all gave.

I guess it was an underhanded attempt to make up for what was lacking in the colloction plate? 😃
Click to expand...
Exactly. And one of the main archbishops that was out there “promoting” indulgences was doing it to pay off a loan he got from another bishop, and they devised this scheme. I cannot remember the archbishop’s name, but maybe someone else here can? Unfortunate, and I agree with Luther about this one abuse. But he took the ‘reformation’ too far by denying central tenets of the Catholic Faith.
 
Semper Fi:
Rogue priests and bishops did this, not the Church.
Click to expand...
still seems to be similar to people giving money to the Church today to finance the building of such things as the new Cathedral in Los Angeles. All I am saying is I don’t find it as bad as they wold have had the church to be.
 
40.png
wjp984:
still seems to be similar to people giving money to the Church today to finance the building of such things as the new Cathedral in Los Angeles. All I am saying is I don’t find it as bad as they wold have had the church to be.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t give a dime for that new ‘cathedral’. 😉
 
lol, there actually were a lot of people angered that all that money went towards building a new cathedral since they dind’t really need to build as new one when they could have just renovated the old one for much cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top