Inquisition, Crusades, Indulgences ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeteyg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The culture of the time dictated different remedies for similar issues we deal with today. Personally resurrecting the burning Christians for light in the garden sounds kind of sexy romantic…in a martyr kind of way. It never fails to intrigue me the ignorance people place on historical facts yet never seem to admit the historical facts of the rest of what the Church actually accomplished.

Also, most of Catholic teaching is misinterpreted because of a lack of proper classical education. I could make a list. I know because I was one of them.
 
Has anyone read any documents of Catholics who lived in the times before the Reformation and how they understood indulgences? I have never read any accounts of Catholic lay people outside of the saints to see how they actually in truth practiced their faith, if they even felt compelled to buy indulgences.
 
Sin does injury to us all. But why are we to make reparations and asked to heal something beyond Christ’s forgiveness? When the Lord forgives the adulteress, he tells her she is forgiven and to go forth and sin no more. He doesn’t tell her she has hoops and ladders to jump through to pay off the forgiveness He just gave her. He tells the Good Thief, “today you will be with Me in paradise,” and doesn’t add a further series of acts the thief must do to make up for the charity or goodness he took away with the sins.

Indulgences don’t appear really until the Middle Ages, they don’t exist in Orthodoxy, and they certainly are not Biblical. I respect your belief regarding them but I see a lot of rationalization, and God’s ways are not our ways. What seems to make sense to us isn’t necessarily of God. We see nothing of inddulgences in Scripture. I believe it is a spurious and dubious belief.
Arandur said:
Do you think sin injures the sinner and the greater Body of Christ?
Is injury healed instantly by forgiveness? What about something as simple as a lie? Is trust restored instantly?
No, the injury takes time to heal, the sinful habit takes time to overcome and replace with virtuous habit. How, then, is it so hard to understand that man is not instantly ready upon forgiveness to go into the full presence of the glorious and Holy God? Especially when the Scriptures refer several times to all of us, even the forgiven faithful, needing to undergo purification and have our lives/actions “tested in fire?”

Indulgences and purgatory are not about “time” in a “sentence.” It’s about a process of purification. Indulgences are an encouragement of actions of value in developing virtues and healing the injury of sin, building up righteousness. They are a recognition that these things are valuable and good. How is that wrong? Oh, and they’re not just some kind of “favor” granted by the pope. They’re actions encouraged by the Church and recognized as being efficacious.
Click to expand...
 
Arandur said:
From my research into this topic, I have found, like many other issues, that the extent of this problem was an exaggeration, a distortion and propaganda piece for anti-Catholics, developed by Protestant schismatics.

Yes, there was selling of indulgences–by some (mainly one bishop, IIRC), but not condoned by the Holy See. Yes, we have also had a few scoundrel popes who looked the other way on other practices, as well, but nowhere will you find an official sanction and promotion of this abuse by the Magisterium.

You have a situation of abuse, of some corrupt leaders and sinners. You will find this in every human community. But you will not find the Divine Institution of the Church, the guidance and sanction of the Spirit to the Magisterium, implicated in this error. So how, then, do indulgences differ?
Click to expand...
Here is a quote from The Story of the Church, written in the 1950’s:
Penances were still more onerous than they are today, consisting of rather extended fasts, the giving of alms, and making of pilgrimages, as well as the recitation of prayers. Toward the beginning of the thirteenth century the custom of granting indulgences became so widespread that Innocent III deprived bishops of the right to grant plenary indulgences, reserving this to the Holy See, and restricted the right to grant partial indulgences.
Click to expand...
This would indicate the practice was not limited to a few, and that it WAS sanctioned by the Pope, since he took it over. Here is a little more:
The occasion for Luther’s revolt was the preaching of indulgences in connection with construction of the new basilica of St. Peter in Rome, authorized by Julius II in 1506 and renewed by Leo X in 1514. The object of the campaign was to collect money from the Catholic faithful by enabling them to share in the indulgences granted to those who contributed…Whatever Dominican John Tetzel’s failings in carrying out his task–he appears to have employed unwise language in “selling” the indulgences–his sermons were based on the Church’s teaching regarding indulgences.
Click to expand...
More Popes involved in indulgences, and quite a statement coming from a history of the Church written by Italian Catholics for Catholics, that it might have been abused (just a little) but it was based on Church teaching!

The book goes on to define and give a history of indulgences, pointing out various Popes who set the conditions for them, such as Leo X, Boniface VIII, Clement VI, and Paul II, and the Council of Trent which defined indulgences and how they were to be made available.

Another book, The History of Christianity, written by a Cambridge church historian (not written from a Catholic viewpoint), doesn’t say that much about indulgences, except for the section on the Reformation.
Indulgences made a lot of money for good causes and some less good, and they were part of a people’s piety; so they were defended. But no one could defend them by saying it is a reasonable act to buy forgiveness, or by claiming that they were taught in the Bible. The only defence possible was that the pope authorized them.
Click to expand...
So two different viewpoints, one admitting abuses but defending indulgences and the other not saying much about the abuses but not finding much validity in them. These differences, along with the role of indulgences in sparking the Reformation, should help us understand why they could be an issue for Protestants thinking about converting to Catholicism.

That was why I said in my earlier post that it was a good thing that indulgences don’t have as prominent a place in the Church as they did even 50 years ago.
 
chaunceygardner said:
Here is a quote from The Story of the Church, written in the 1950’s:

This would indicate the practice was not limited to a few, and that it WAS sanctioned by the Pope, since he took it over. Here is a little more:

More Popes involved in indulgences, and quite a statement coming from a history of the Church written by Italian Catholics for Catholics, that it might have been abused (just a little) but it was based on Church teaching!
Click to expand...
Chauncey, what are you getting at? It seems like you completely missed the point. The problem is not the practice of indulgences. I have explained them above and no one has objected to my explanation. The objections I was hearing were to the concept of “selling” indulgences–not recognizing and encouraging good practices, but selling them for money.

THAT was the practice that was very limited and never sanctioned by the Magisterium. It was surely an abuse, and yet even your source suggests that those collecting money weren’t truly couching it in terms of “selling” them or of “selling forgiveness.”

And for Gurney, as well, you must understand that indulgences have nothing to do with forgiveness. Forgiveness was already obtained. It is the damage done by sin and the justice called for them that we’re talking about. The simple example is a lie. When someone lies seriously, they break trust. Trust is not instantly restored. It must be regained, healed. There are often just consequences for the lie, even if it is forgiven.

So please quit mischaracterizing indulgences.
 
I would say that for me the biggest stumbling block that I have, aside from theological ones, is the sexual abuse scandal. I live in a heavily Catholic neighborhood, and two of the closest parishes to me have been affected. The first had two of three priests removed due to accusations of abuse, and the second had a priest arrested from a sting operation; he was going to meet with a 16 year old girl for sex, and they found child pornography on his computer. The abuses also seem to be very wide spread, with new accusations recently coming from Ireland and Germany. What troubles me most isn’t the abuses themselves, terrible though they are, but how the Catholic Church (CC) has responded to them. It seems to have been the policy for a long time to keep the issue within the CC and not to notify the police; priests were given counseling and moved to a different diocese where the abuses often continued. The counter argument I’ve heard is that every church has priests that commit sexual crimes, not just the CC, that the number of offending priests has been exaggerated, that the CC never really tried to protect the priests or forbid notifying the police, etc. I’ve just never found these counter arguments convincing in light of some of the documents that have surfaced about how this was handled in the past in contrast to what the CC claims it did. I just don’t see this problem happening as frequently in other churches, in particular child abuse. I believe that it’s directly related to the practice of clerical celibacy; priests have no acceptable sexual outlets, and it seems to manifest itself these in these abuses.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Indulgences are also issues for me, but in particular indulgences since they’re officially approved of and practiced.
 
dcointin said:
I would say that for me the biggest stumbling block that I have, aside from theological ones, is the sexual abuse scandal. I live in a heavily Catholic neighborhood, and two of the closest parishes to me have been affected. The first had two of three priests removed due to accusations of abuse, and the second had a priest arrested from a sting operation; he was going to meet with a 16 year old girl for sex, and they found child pornography on his computer. The abuses also seem to be very wide spread, with new accusations recently coming from Ireland and Germany. What troubles me most isn’t the abuses themselves, terrible though they are, but how the Catholic Church (CC) has responded to them. It seems to have been the policy for a long time to keep the issue within the CC and not to notify the police; priests were given counseling and moved to a different diocese where the abuses often continued. The counter argument I’ve heard is that every church has priests that commit sexual crimes, not just the CC, that the number of offending priests has been exaggerated, that the CC never really tried to protect the priests or forbid notifying the police, etc. I’ve just never found these counter arguments convincing in light of some of the documents that have surfaced about how this was handled in the past in contrast to what the CC claims it did. I just don’t see this problem happening as frequently in other churches, in particular child abuse. I believe that it’s directly related to the practice of clerical celibacy; priests have no acceptable sexual outlets, and it seems to manifest itself these in these abuses.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Indulgences are also issues for me, but in particular indulgences since they’re officially approved of and practiced.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to say that pedophilia is a result of celibacy.

Pedophiles are perverts – preferring sex with minors. Are you suggesting that they should practice them? Except for official Muslim countries, the practice of pedophilia is illegal; so celibacy does not arise.

Pedophilia in the Catholic Church causes its most darkened history and sufferings. We can only hope that this problem will be overcome by the grace of God. There are many suggestions as to what the Church should and should not do; some of these no doubt is genuine especially from the affected victims and their families. We can only hope great wisdom will prevail to address this problem effectively and with justice. I do not have the answer and most probably none have that is perfect.

Catholic faithfuls can only pray and which they do during mass, individually and corporately that our priests are continued to be blessed and faithful to their calling to the vocations.

They can also play a part in reporting the culprits to the authority if there is strong evidence to indicate that the crime is committed.

Just last month the Pope, Benedict XVI said, “We are in great sorrow and shame for the suffering caused to the people by the sins that the church committed” (Paraphrase).
 
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Catholic Church is struggling so much with sexual abuse among its clergy which are celibate, when I’m not seeing the same thing in other churches whose clergy are not celibate. I can’t prove this of course, I just doubt it’s the case. I’m not trying to be offensive in saying that, and I know it’s a very controversial statement, I’m just trying to give an honest response to the question. I’m Orthodox, and converted from Lutheranism, and studied the Catholic faith for a long time before making my decision, and this was a factor for me. I’m definitely open to opposing arguments!
 
chaunceygardner said:
So two different viewpoints, one admitting abuses but defending indulgences and the other not saying much about the abuses but not finding much validity in them. These differences, along with the role of indulgences in sparking the Reformation, should help us understand why they could be an issue for Protestants thinking about converting to Catholicism.

That was why I said in my earlier post that it was a good thing that indulgences don’t have as prominent a place in the Church as they did even 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
You are right. If you ask the average Catholics today perhaps the majority of them will unable to tell you just what exactly indulgence is. This is because it is not emphasized and practiced as perhaps compared to during that era. Nevertheless the principle of indulgence is there because it is the truth. Not only do Catholics have to confess and pray for the forgiveness of sin but they also have to do acts of penance because the sin is both against God and against our fellow humans.
 
Christ said to do penance lest we likewise perish…none of that old time easy religion here.

True Catholicism is both comforting, clear, but also demanding and leaves no stone unturned…Catholicism is pastoral but sobering. We will be held accountable for all our sins and failings. Grace abounds every day and it is ours to draw on for eternal life.
 
Arandur said:
Chauncey, what are you getting at? It seems like you completely missed the point. The problem is not the practice of indulgences. I have explained them above and no one has objected to my explanation. The objections I was hearing were to the concept of “selling” indulgences–not recognizing and encouraging good practices, but selling them for money.

THAT was the practice that was very limited and never sanctioned by the Magisterium. It was surely an abuse, and yet even your source suggests that those collecting money weren’t truly couching it in terms of “selling” them or of “selling forgiveness.” …

So please quit mischaracterizing indulgences.
Click to expand...
I would agree with what you say in your first paragraph, and apologize for not making my point clearly. Which is that the practice evolved into one of “selling”, as it stated in the Church history I quoted from: “The object of the campaign was to collect money from the Catholic faithful.” Rather than emphasizing the spiritual benefits of prayer, good works and reading the Bible, the idea of indulgences in the middle ages focused on money. That is quite obvious, and was a central issue to the Reformation.

But I can’t see how you can say it wasn’t sanctioned by the Magisterium when Popes, Bishops and Councils all were involved in using indulgences to raise money for church projects, including the builidng of St. Peter’s?
 
(dcointin,

There is sex abuse going clear across the entire strata of our modern, pornographic society. It is inspired by the evil one, not celibacy.

What is happening in the Catholic Church in America, the actual abuse is a very small percentage. 1 to 3% is an aberration that you find in any institution. 97 to 98% of the Catholic clergy is not criminal. With those statistics, you can’t say the church’s disciplines promotes sexual perversion and abuse.)

America is the heart land of virulent anti-Catholicism. Just as the Gutenberg invented the printing press, the ‘Christian’ calumniators have their printing presses going full speed with all sorts of accusations that have been being spewed since the 1800’s. Who is it … Chick Publications getting people to believe – through their own willingness – that the Church slaughtered 25 million.

It was two 1800’s Americans of the Stone Campbell movement who studied aspects of the Inquisition, did make some true statements, but it was all skewed…the actual documents were not opened, as i said earlier until 2003.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
If it weren’t for Luther and company, there wouldn’t have been a Trent and a counter-reformation. Without Protestants, Vatican II wouldn’t have happened (many in CAF think that would’ve been a good thing). Without the media putting on the intense pressure on the Catholic Church, we’d continue with the status quo of cover-ups, moving sex predators around and shuffling, we’d have more of the same with bishops and priests committing sexual atrocities.
Click to expand...
This is Fallacy called Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
 
I think Guerny has a point…the Reformation was indeed a purgation for the Church, just as it is now.

Most of the abuse was happening during the time of the sexual revolution of the late 60s to early 80’s.

So I personally think modern society is a large factor as well in the clergy abuse crisis. I read an article recently how pornography has affected the priesthood. Right down the street from the priory, is a large building that has a 3-story blond woman in a bikini pulling at her bottom to take it off. That was up there for several years and every time they had to go out, that is what they’d look at. These priests are celibate, faithful, and not doing what the small percentage of those are doing either.

But we live in a highly sexualized society. And it goes in tandem with the clergy sex abuse.
 
KathleenGee said:
I think Guerny has a point…the Reformation was indeed a purgation for the Church, just as it is now.

Most of the abuse was happening during the time of the sexual revolution of the late 60s to early 80’s.

So I personally think modern society is a large factor as well in the clergy abuse crisis. I read an article recently how pornography has affected the priesthood. Right down the street from the priory, is a large building that has a 3-story blond woman in a bikini pulling at her bottom to take it off. That was up there for several years and every time they had to go out, that is what they’d look at. These priests are celibate, faithful, and not doing what the small percentage of those are doing either.

But we live in a highly sexualized society. And it goes in tandem with the clergy sex abuse.
Click to expand...
Arandur said:
Do you think sin injures the sinner and the greater Body of Christ?
Is injury healed instantly by forgiveness? What about something as simple as a lie? Is trust restored instantly?
No, the injury takes time to heal, the sinful habit takes time to overcome and replace with virtuous habit. How, then, is it so hard to understand that man is not instantly ready upon forgiveness to go into the full presence of the glorious and Holy God? Especially when the Scriptures refer several times to all of us, even the forgiven faithful, needing to undergo purification and have our lives/actions “tested in fire?”

Indulgences and purgatory are not about “time” in a “sentence.” It’s about a process of purification. Indulgences are an encouragement of actions of value in developing virtues and healing the injury of sin, building up righteousness. They are a recognition that these things are valuable and good. How is that wrong? Oh, and they’re not just some kind of “favor” granted by the pope. They’re actions encouraged by the Church and recognized as being efficacious.
Click to expand...
I’m still having a hard time trying to figure out what an indulgence is?
Is it sort of extra credit work along with doing penence to help lessen the effect of the sin?

Matthew
 
Well, Gabriel12 and Reuben are doing their best to explain an indulgence doctrinally on the other thread started by SST.
 
You don’t need to give me a link telling me what a fallacy is, adrift. I’d hope you’d respect my intellect enough (as I do yours) to know that I am aware of what a fallacy is.

That being said, please explain the fallacy in my statement instead of making a blanket statement.
adrift said:
This is Fallacy called Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top