Indulgencies

[CatQuilt]

I may be wrong, and often am, but my understanding was the requirement was to be free from the attraction of a sin. It was explained to me that it referred to what I call and habitual sin. If you have two or three things that you seem to confess over and over, they would be habitual sin. As you worked to conquer them, and as you did, eventually you would not have an attraction to a particular sin. That is not to say you would be sinless, rather that you were not in the habit of sinning a particular sin. At that point in your spiritual life, you would be fulfilling the requirement.

I figure we won’t find out till after we’ve left here so all I can do is try my best.

 

[LilyM]

I may be wrong, and often am, but my understanding was the requirement was to be free from the attraction of a sin. It was explained to me that it referred to what I call and habitual sin. If you have two or three things that you seem to confess over and over, they would be habitual sin. As you worked to conquer them, and as you did, eventually you would not have an attraction to a particular sin. That is not to say you would be sinless, rather that you were not in the habit of sinning a particular sin. At that point in your spiritual life, you would be fulfilling the requirement.

Of course if you’re gaining a plenary indulgence to be applied to a soul or souls in purgatory you don’t need to adhere to this requirement. Plus you gain an intercessor in heaven - they being the soul or souls you’ve assisted

 

[SnorterLuster]

Of course if you’re gaining a plenary indulgence to be applied to a soul or souls in purgatory you don’t need to adhere to this requirement. Plus you gain an intercessor in heaven - they being the soul or souls you’ve assisted

I did not know that. To be sure I am understanding, if you fulfill all the requirements except for the attraction to a sin, you can earn the indulgence if it is for the departed, just not for yourself?

 

[LilyM]

I did not know that. To be sure I am understanding, if you fulfill all the requirements except for the attraction to a sin, you can earn the indulgence if it is for the departed, just not for yourself?

That’s my understanding, since it’s not being applied to your own sins or punishment.

 

[mommyof4]

Of course if you’re gaining a plenary indulgence to be applied to a soul or souls in purgatory you don’t need to adhere to this requirement. Plus you gain an intercessor in heaven - they being the soul or souls you’ve assisted

That is why I never keep a plenary indulgence for myself - I always offer them up for a soul in purgatory. I figure that I need all the intercessors in heaven that I can get! Besides, I feel selfish trying to keep them all for me. It just doesn’t feel right. I do say a few indulged prayers for myself throughout the day, but I give the “biggies” to someone else.

 

[East_Anglican]

It’s really very simple and similar to what is actually practiced in the secular penal system.

For example: You have stolen something, but have been caught. You regret it and give back the stolen goods to the owner and the owner forgives you (contrition and reconciliation=cf. the sacrament of confession).

Still, with your deed you have done harm to another, yourself and society, so this “rupture” has to be remedied by a penance. So you are sentenced to, say, three months’ prison. (I’m not a lawyer, it’s just an example.)

This “prison” or other sentence is what we call in the language of the Church “temporal punishment of sins”. In fact, it is stated that if you died immediately after confession, you would suffer a time of punishment in Purgatory (place of cleansing), because your soul is not yet pure enough to go before God. This would be temporal punishment in supernatural terms.

Now, because the Catholic Church has been given the power to bind and to loose, so she may remit this punishment partially or fully - analogously to you being let free after a month from prison (instead of serving the full sentence of three months) because of good conduct.

This remittance is called indulgence. It can be partial (partial indulgence) or full (plenary indulgence). Today, it can be acquired by certain prayers, deeds, listening to the the blessing “urbi et orbi” at Christmas and Easter etc., always in connection with Confession and Communion. Around All Souls’ Day, you can even gain indulgences for departed people (which helps them with the remittance of their temporal punishments in Purgatory).

Also see here:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/article9.html

As an Anglican I do not believe in Purgatory, but Purgatory aside, what you have said makes perfect sense. I could say that I believe that “If you forgive someone their sins they are forgiven” was said to all followers of Christ not just those in robes and dog collers, but that is another debate.

Thank you very much. The Lord bless you abundantly.

Also , newadvent.org is oone of the best if not the best Christian site on the web. I sometimes go there and read early cChurch documents. As an Anglican i am not someone who believes that The Church died shortly after the first centurry and got resserected at the time of Martin Luther. Any Protestant that disagrees should read Thomas A Kempis.

 

[East_Anglican]

No problems - we like genuine questions round here (not baiting though).

The fact is we don’t really know a lot of the details of how indulgences work. We do know, however, that part of the efficacy of them depends on the devotion of the person who’s praying. And of course part depends on how much temporal punishment a particular soul may have accumulated for themselves.

In short we must trust Jesus and his authority which he has given his church concerning this matter.

 

[East_Anglican]

Seek, great questions! I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but you can earn indulgences and ‘give’ to those who have died. I don’t believe you can ‘pass’ them on to someone who is still living.

I think plenary indulgences are very difficult to obtain but you should always try to obtain one. In other words, keep your eyes focused on heaven…

Can somone confess and repent in proxy?

I’m thinking logically. If you can confess and repent in proxy for someone who has died, logic would have it that you can do the same for someone who is alive. (I believe we can.)

 

[East_Anglican]

I did not know that. To be sure I am understanding, if you fulfill all the requirements except for the attraction to a sin, you can earn the indulgence if it is for the departed, just not for yourself?

I know of a quuote that I need to find to explain this.

 

[Taliesin]

The teaching on indulgences remains unchanged:

See this for more: catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

I understand the Catholic position that the Church has been given authority to forgive sins (and I as one of the priesthood of all believers, have that authority). Where is penance in the Bible? Repentance is all over the place. Where are indulgences in the Bible? Where does it say in the Scriptures that “The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead”? Neither Jesus nor Paul ever talked about this.

 

[CatQuilt]

Can somone confess and repent in proxy?

I’m thinking logically. If you can confess and repent in proxy for someone who has died, logic would have it that you can do the same for someone who is alive. (I believe we can.)

From the USCCB…

**

**iii. How can we help the deceased through indulgences?

**

Just as it is because of the Communion of Saints within the Body of Christ that the Church can grant an indulgence to someone, it is likewise because of the Communion of Saints that one person can obtain an indulgence for someone who has died in order to reduce his or her temporal punishment in Purgatory. We the living are not separated from the faithful departed by death and can still do things for their benefit. As Pope John Paul II has pointed out, "the truth about the communion of saints which unites believers to Christ and to one another, reveals how much each of us can help others—living or dead—to become ever more intimately united with the Father in heaven."66 At the same time, all of us in the Communion of Saints need to recognize that whatever help we can give each other ultimately comes not from ourselves but from Christ. "For when the faithful gain indulgences they realize that by their own powers they cannot atone for the evil that they have afflicted upon themselves and the entire community by sinning; they therefore are moved to a healthy humility."67

source

I don’t have the time to look for more of an explanation but here a wonderful blog on devotions. This particular blog entry is on indulgences…

somanydevotions.blogspot.com/2007/01/indulgences.html
**

 

[LilyM]

I understand the Catholic position that the Church has been given authority to forgive sins (and I as one of the priesthood of all believers, have that authority). Where is penance in the Bible? Repentance is all over the place. Where are indulgences in the Bible? Where does it say in the Scriptures that “The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead”? Neither Jesus nor Paul ever talked about this.

This is where Bible history gets really interesting. You know the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament? Well fact is they have been formally set as part of the canon of the Bible since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 300s. In the Reformation they were actually REMOVED from non-Catholic Bibles by the Reformers, who really had no right or authority to change the Canon of Scripture in this way.

Anyway. They include a book called 2 Maccabees, don’t know if you’ve ever read it. All about the Jewish revolt against Syrian occupation under Judas Maccabeus. This book includes an episode where, after a battle in which a large number of Judas’ soldiers die, they are found to have been wearing pagan amulets or religious items.

Big no-no and sin for supposedly devout Jews, right? Judas Maccabeus is recorded in this book as having raised money to send to the Temple in Jerusalem to have sacrifices offered for the souls of these dead soldiers so that they will be purified of their sins!!! Well, there you have it in black and white, the OT Jews belived in praying for the dead and offering on their behalf!!! No wonder the Reformers got rid of that particular book.

 

[Contarini]

I may be wrong, and often am, but my understanding was the requirement was to be free from the attraction of a sin. It was explained to me that it referred to what I call and habitual sin. If you have two or three things that you seem to confess over and over, they would be habitual sin. As you worked to conquer them, and as you did, eventually you would not have an attraction to a particular sin. That is not to say you would be sinless, rather that you were not in the habit of sinning a particular sin. At that point in your spiritual life, you would be fulfilling the requirement.

I’ve been told that it meant freedom from any attachment to any sin at all. I take this to be equivalent to what Wesleyans call entire sanctification. It makes sense to me that this would free one from any need for purgatory (since as I understand it this is the purpose of purgatory), and also that it would be very rare. To me, any other definition of a plenary indulgence would be deeply disturbing–it would amount to the Church arbitrarily remitting someone’s punishment at will. This is exactly what Luther objected to, and he was clearly right to do so. If indulgences cannot be explained without treating temporal punishment as an arbitrary imposition, then they are heretical.

Edwin

 

[lumendelumine]

Can somone confess and repent in proxy?

I’m thinking logically. If you can confess and repent in proxy for someone who has died, logic would have it that you can do the same for someone who is alive. (I believe we can.)

Confession and repentance (not to forget Communion!) are part of the discipline how an indulgence is to be gained. Of course we can’t “confess and repent by proxy”, because all sins are individual sins. Indulgences are only for sins already confessed and repented (our own or others’).

Picture it this way: Christ has this very dirty guy on his hands who is covered with a crust of mud head to foot. He starts cleaning the guy of the mud. Then He sees a bunch of the guy’s friends around, so he calls to them: “I want to invite your friend to this really wonderful party, but he’s awfully dirty and I’ve got to clean him of all this mud. Don’t you want to help me with it? If you help me, your friend will get to the party sooner.”

So it’s really that: “helping with the scrubbing” through our prayers and the indulgences gained by us according to the discipline of the Church.

I could say that I believe that “If you forgive someone their sins they are forgiven” was said to all followers of Christ not just those in robes and dog collers, but that is another debate.

You may know from the Bible that only God can forgive sins (as seen from the indignation Christ caused every time He forgave someone’s sins). It’s new to me that we have all suddenly become God… Especially as Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to His Apostles, not to all His followers. (You’re probably a low-Church Anglican, aren’t you?)

As an Anglican I do not believe in Purgatory

Picture Adolf Hitler (or Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot or any mass murderer of your choice) repenting and making an act of perfect contrition a millisecond before their deaths, being saved and going to Heaven.

Picture this. And then tell me that Purgatory does not make sense…

 

[lumendelumine]

I’ve been told that it meant freedom from any attachment to any sin at all.

Yes, exactly. This does not mean that one is not tempted (even Christ was tempted). It is rather an act of the will and the complete cooperation of the will with the grace of God.

It makes sense to me that this would free one from any need for purgatory (since as I understand it this is the purpose of purgatory), and also that it would be very rare.

No no no. Being free from attachment to all sin at the time of the gaining of the plenary indulgence is one thing (though that may be rare too, I admit). Remaining so until the moment of death is quite another matter. One may validly gain a plenary indulgence and nevertheless commit a grave sin the following day.

it would amount to the Church arbitrarily remitting someone’s punishment at will.
If indulgences cannot be explained without treating temporal punishment as an arbitrary imposition, then they are heretical.

Unfortunately, I don’t know exactly what you mean. But as far as I can understand, it is in connection with the power of the Church to actually impose penances and punishments as reparation for sins repented (by the sinner) and forgiven (by the power of the Church).

Even though you may not believe in the power of the Church (received from God) to impose such penances, two points to note:

a) Remittance of punishment (i. e. indulgences) in the Church is not “arbitrary”, because its conditions are precisely laid down and these conditions apply to all. It would only be arbitrary if the conditions would be different for different people or whatever.

b) Since only God knows how many and what kind of indulgences one has really gained - especially plenary indulgences -, and if these make up for the sins committed in one’s lifetime or not, the believer will only know after his/her death if he/she may enter Heaven straight away or has first to be cleansed in Purgatory before being admitted into the Divine Presence.

 

[East_Anglican]

This is where Bible history gets really interesting. You know the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament? Well fact is they have been formally set as part of the canon of the Bible since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 300s. In the Reformation they were actually REMOVED from non-Catholic Bibles by the Reformers, who really had no right or authority to change the Canon of Scripture in this way.

Anyway. They include a book called 2 Maccabees, don’t know if you’ve ever read it. All about the Jewish revolt against Syrian occupation under Judas Maccabeus. This book includes an episode where, after a battle in which a large number of Judas’ soldiers die, they are found to have been wearing pagan amulets or religious items.

Big no-no and sin for supposedly devout Jews, right? Judas Maccabeus is recorded in this book as having raised money to send to the Temple in Jerusalem to have sacrifices offered for the souls of these dead soldiers so that they will be purified of their sins!!! Well, there you have it in black and white, the OT Jews belived in praying for the dead and offering on their behalf!!! No wonder the Reformers got rid of that particular book.

Deutrocanon means Second Canon. I’m not getting into a debate on if The Deutrocanonical books should be there or not at present. The thing is, the passage doesn’t say that Judas Maccabeus was doing the right thing.

 

[East_Anglican]

Confession and repentance (not to forget Communion!) are part of the discipline how an indulgence is to be gained. Of course we can’t “confess and repent by proxy”, because all sins are individual sins. Indulgences are only for sins already confessed and repented (our own or others’).

Picture it this way: Christ has this very dirty guy on his hands who is covered with a crust of mud head to foot. He starts cleaning the guy of the mud. Then He sees a bunch of the guy’s friends around, so he calls to them: “I want to invite your friend to this really wonderful party, but he’s awfully dirty and I’ve got to clean him of all this mud. Don’t you want to help me with it? If you help me, your friend will get to the party sooner.”

So it’s really that: “helping with the scrubbing” through our prayers and the indulgences gained by us according to the discipline of the Church.

Think of this scenario. Someone has wronged you and you pray and ask God to forgive that person for the wrong they have done to you. If God wouldn’t forgive them then there would be no point of asking.

You may know from the Bible that only God can forgive sins (as seen from the indignation Christ caused every time He forgave someone’s sins). It’s new to me that we have all suddenly become God… Especially as Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to His Apostles, not to all His followers.

When Jesus said to his diciples “If you forgive someone their sins, their sins will be forgiven.” He meant that they had the power to forgive sins as God has the power to forgive sins. The New Covenant is better than the old Covenant in many ways and this is one of them. The power to forgive sins does not make someonde God. The power to do so is God given.

(You’re probably a low-Church Anglican, aren’t you?)

I am Evangelical with catholic leanings or catholic with evangelical leanings. (Mainstream)

Picture Adolf Hitler (or Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot or any mass murderer of your choice) repenting and making an act of perfect contrition a millisecond before their deaths, being saved and going to Heaven.

Picture this. And then tell me that Purgatory does not make sense…

If Jesus paid the price for their sins and they have turned to him then purgatory doesn’t make any sense. Who knowas the mind of God? We all deserve Hell but his mercy is what stops us from going there. Logically Gods mercy doesn’t make any sense but we all can recieve it.

p.s I’d rather not debate Purgatory at present.

 

[jeri_gerpe]

My questions are:

1- Who & when came up with the concept of indulgences?
2- What if you don’t believe in the concept of indulgences (but you believe in repentance) is that a sin?

Thanks,

 

[lumendelumine]

@East Anglican:

Think of this scenario. Someone has wronged you and you pray and ask God to forgive that person for the wrong they have done to you. If God wouldn’t forgive them then there would be no point of asking.

No. Gaining indulgences for others is not specifically about praying for someone who has wronged you (though it may be) and it’s not that God may forgive them. God has already forgiven them. They are saved. They are going to Heaven to enjoy the Beatific Vision. They only have to go to the “disinfectation room” first…

Purgatory is not about forgiveness, it’s about reparation. Imagine someone has broken your window. Though he may ask for forgiveness and you may forgive him, the window has still to be repaired. Purgatory is like paying for the repairment of the window. Gaining indulgences is like having to pay less for the window (or not having to pay for it altogether), because the proprietor, in His goodness, has resolved to pay for the window in part or altogether. Gaining indulgences for other is like participating in the payment of the windows they have broken.

Purgatory/indulgences only follow **after ** the forgiveness of sins, as reparation. I mean, even in our penal system, a thief goes to prison for punishment, even if he his victim has forgiven him…

The power to forgive sins does not make someonde God. The power to do so is God given.

There are always two contrary Protestant objections against the Catholic position on the forgiveness of sins:
One is: “No man can forgive sins! Only God can forgive sins!”
The other one is: “Jesus has given us the power to forgive sins. So now everyone can forgive sins!”

One may debate long about this, but each of these answers begs the question, as one goes against Scripture (against Jn 20 you have been quoting), and the other one against reason (so now I may go around forgiving people’s sins in the name of God? who gave me the authority to do so? how do I know and how do others know that God has really forgiven them their sins through me?).

The Catholic position is the one in the middle, that both takes into account Christ’s conferral of His authority to forgive sins, and the problem of authority and reliability.
The solution: only the Church as an institution, through her authoritative hierarchy which descends from the Apostles, and only in the forms authorized by her, is able to forgive sins. In everyday life, this means that only consecrated priests in good standing have the power to forgive sins in the name of Christ and reconcile the sinner to God and the Church.

If Jesus paid the price for their sins and they have turned to him then purgatory doesn’t make any sense.

We all won’t get into Heaven without Christ (including the Just of pre-Christian times). It is only by Him that Heaven has been opened up to us.

Purgatory is (also) a matter of justice. It is of course true that all workers in the vineyard get their pay (=Heaven), whether they have been hired in the first or in the last hour. But if the worker of the last hour has been going about killing the other workers and destroying the vineyard before he was hired, then he has first to make some kind of reparation before he can get his pay. The fact that he does get his pay (which is, after all, eternal) is already the greatest sign of God’s mercy.

Sorry, you didn’t want to debate Purgatory… Still, I had to clear up some misconceptions.

@jeri gerpe:

1- Who & when came up with the concept of indulgences?

I have said before I think that indulgences arose from the severe penal practice of early Christian times. First, it was only the (partly) remission of a penalty. Later, when the penal practice changed, a more sophisticated concept had to be found. That was when the teaching on Purgatory emerged (though that can be already found in nuce in the Bible).

First, indulgences were only granted for really great and dangerous penances, like going on the Crusades or on a major pilgrimage (traveling was much more dangerous then of course than it is today).

The full concept of indulgences finally developed in the 12th-13th centuries, when the idea gained more importance that indulgences were after all granted by the Grace of God and could not really be “earned” by Man. St. Francis of Assisi was AFAIK one of the first who came up with the idea that indulgences should also be granted for visiting certain churches or praying certain prayers, rather than only for doing something really painful and dangerous.

2- What if you don’t believe in the concept of indulgences (but you believe in repentance) is that a sin?

Yes. The concept of indulgences has to be believed de fide by all the faithful. Or, more specifically: You have to believe that the Church has the power and authority to grant indulgences and that the granting and gaining of indulgences is something beneficiary. (according to Ludwig Ott, Grundriss der katholischen Dogmatik, one of the major Catholic works on Dogmatics)