Inquisition, Crusades, Indulgences ....

[adrift]

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.

I hardly gave a blanket statement since I named the fallacy.
Instead of lecturing me about how you know what a fallacy is, it would have been better to read the link I gave you which gives this definition.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common example is the idea that one “owes” her success to another individual who taught her. For instance, “You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn’t taught you how to recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer.” Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.

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.

Instead of the example of Einstein just plug in your statements they are perfect demonstrations of the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

 

[Arandur]

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

I know others have posted links. The short answer that I would respond with is that no, indulgences are not “extra credit.” They are actions that help heal our spirit and heal the greater Body of Christ (for sin wounds all). Penances are acts that demonstrate our resolve in true contrition and repentance. Other actions of spiritual growth–some of which indulgences are formally recognized and encouraged by indulgences–work as “love [that] covers a multitude of sins.”

Again I turn to the example of breaches in honesty. When one lies, particularly in a serious matter, trust is not instantly restored, though forgiveness may be quickly offered. Trust must be restored through consistent honest action. Similarly with the effects of other sins.

 

[Arandur]

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?

At all times, indulgences included various pious acts and intended the encouragement of these. It was never focused solely on money. Indulgences also required the proper spirit. Merely attempting to “buy” them without true contrition, absolution of sins, and pious intent would be improper, not an indulgence at all. Thus an indulgence can never be “purchased.” It is true, however, that donations and almsgiving beyond mere tithing was recognized as a good thing and it was under this concept that indulgences could be granted. This makes sense when poverty and a lack of attachment to material things is seen as a virtue–which it is, in all ages. So in the proper context and spirit, sacrificial donations are a good thing, similar to other actions that reduce our attachment to our own egos and the things of this world and increase our attachment to God and our caring for others.

I went back and reread your original post. I’m going to repost for reference:

Here is a quote from The Story of the Church, written in the 1950’s:

Quote:
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.

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:

What I see here is that indulgences became more widely practiced. There isn’t a mention at this point of “selling” indulgences.

Quote:
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.

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!

Here we have the mention of selling–but not to the exclusion of other donations. And yes, there is an authorization by popes–but the charism of infallibility, you should know, does not apply to every act of popes.

As far as being based on Church teaching, this goes back to what I said above–sacrificial almsgiving is a good thing. Why should it be recognized as different from other virtuous acts? The intent obviously can not be to merely purchase an indulgence as mere product off a shelf. Neither can performance of a prayer merely be done with the intent of obtaining an indulgence. There is much more involved in having the proper spirit and intent.

 

[GKC]

I hardly gave a blanket statement since I named the fallacy.
Instead of lecturing me about how you know what a fallacy is, it would have been better to read the link I gave you which gives this definition.

Instead of the example of Einstein just plug in your statements they are perfect demonstrations of the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

A defensible position. And one I use when addressing what Henry VIII meant to the long-term relationship between the RCC and the Church in England. But to contemplate counter-factuals is not an altogether contemptible position, either. See the classic IF, OR HISTORY REWRITTEN. Or, more recently, Cowley’s WHAT IF (in 2 volumes) or, more recently still, and more scholarly, VIRTUAL HISTORY, ed. Ferguson.

It depends a lot on whether one subscribes, in a given instance, to the critical moment/man theory, or to the inertia of history theory. Me, I tend to the latter, though it’s not a given. And I do enjoy Harry Turtledove.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Uh, excuse me, when did I “lecture” you about knowing what a fallacy is? I simply said that I know what it is. And have you considered that if I read every single link that people lazily throw down that I’d be here until doomsday? I prefer to state my opinions rather than giving links to others that do it for me. You have a different approach. That’s fine. I know what a fallacy is so I don’t need to read your link. That makes sense to me. I know what gravity is so why go to a link and waste ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back reading about gravity?

I hardly gave a blanket statement since I named the fallacy.
Instead of lecturing me about how you know what a fallacy is, it would have been better to read the link I gave you which gives this definition.

Instead of the example of Einstein just plug in your statements they are perfect demonstrations of the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

I’m gratified that you have learned some rhetoric and philosophy terminology. That’s great.

Any other words you’d like to bust out like “red herring” or “non-sequitur” or perhaps “denying the antecedent” or “equivocation?” We’ve all been to college and taken logic, adrift. But thanks for the refresher course! I’ve been speaking like a layman and not a master of antiquities and rhetoric for so many years now, I almost forgot how to speak like this!

 

[Greg27]

I don’t think the Inquisition, Crusades or the practice of Indulgences are necessarily a reason to not join the church. These events lie hundreds of years in the past and the Catholic Church itself for the most part tends to recognise them as wrong. Nevertheless they are a dark stain on the historical record of Christianity and I don’t think the Catholic Church can be truthful to itself without acknowledging the past.

The main reason I don’t like the Catholic Church today is the authoritarian style of leadership and governance that seems to have taken root in the church following John Paul II. The church seems to have become very retrograde and narrow-minded in its views on various matters and threatens heavy penal sanctions (and sometimes has imposed them) on clerics and laypeople who dissent or disagree with the church’s stance on a particular moral question which doesn’t necessarily touch on dogmas (such as the morality of contraceptive use for example).

This ties in in my view with the problem of sex abuse in the church and the lack of accountability and transparency in the church to victims, as well as a reluctance to punish offenders. The church’s moral standing in my view has been severely tarnished and it lacks credibility on other moral issues because it seems to protect people guilty of very serious crimes in its own fold (such as priests guilty of sexual abuse of minors), while it condemns people like women who have abortions, dissenting Catholics, or people who use contraception, who have committed no crime. If you hold yourself up as a moral exemplar and don’t act as such in practice you don’t really amount to much.

A further problem for me is the church’s stance towards homosexual people and women. While it is understandable to me the church has its reasons for not permitting homosexuality to be accepted or celebrated in its own community, I think it is wrong that the church has actively tried to stop homosexual people who have no connection with the church from being granted civil rights, including the right to have their relationship legally recognised. In my view the church has no competence and jurisidiction upon members of society who have no connection with the church or who don’t practice their faith in the church anymore. It is also problematic to me the church has barred women from leadership roles in their communities on grounds in my view that are questionable.

A further problem to me is the implacable opposition of the church to contraceptive use. This is problematic in developing countries where the population is booming and causing a lot of social, economic and environmental problems. The problems caused by booming population growth (including crime, poverty, disease, etc) often cost many lives and ruin countless more through misery and squalor. The pressure the church often imposes on governments in developing countries where the bulk of the population is Catholic to ban access to abortion or family planning often leads to miserable outcomes, especially for the poorer in society.

I think the Church has made and continues to make some very bad policy decisions which cause great misery for a lot of people, from the heartache of people who remarry after ending a bad marriage and are barred from the Eucharist, to the victims of sexual abusers to women who die from botched illegal abortions in developing Catholic countries, to the families that are too big to support themselves and eke out a miserable existence in grinding poverty. For these reasons and the threat of things like excommunication or sacking that hangs over clerics or laypeople who don’t tow the party line, I find it hard to see how the church in the way it currently runs would be a organisation you would want to join.

 

[T_More]

I don’t think the Inquisition, Crusades or the practice of Indulgences are necessarily a reason to not join the church. These events lie hundreds of years in the past and the Catholic Church itself for the most part tends to recognise them as wrong. Nevertheless they are a dark stain on the historical record of Christianity and I don’t think the Catholic Church can be truthful to itself without acknowledging the past.

The main reason I don’t like the Catholic Church today is the authoritarian style of leadership and governance that seems to have taken root in the church following John Paul II. The church seems to have become very retrograde and narrow-minded in its views on various matters and threatens heavy penal sanctions (and sometimes has imposed them) on clerics and laypeople who dissent or disagree with the church’s stance on a particular moral question which doesn’t necessarily touch on dogmas (such as the morality of contraceptive use for example).

This ties in in my view with the problem of sex abuse in the church and the lack of accountability and transparency in the church to victims, as well as a reluctance to punish offenders. The church’s moral standing in my view has been severely tarnished and it lacks credibility on other moral issues because it seems to protect people guilty of very serious crimes in its own fold (such as priests guilty of sexual abuse of minors), while it condemns people like women who have abortions, dissenting Catholics, or people who use contraception, who have committed no crime. If you hold yourself up as a moral exemplar and don’t act as such in practice you don’t really amount to much.

A further problem for me is the church’s stance towards homosexual people and women. While it is understandable to me the church has its reasons for not permitting homosexuality to be accepted or celebrated in its own community, I think it is wrong that the church has actively tried to stop homosexual people who have no connection with the church from being granted civil rights, including the right to have their relationship legally recognised. In my view the church has no competence and jurisidiction upon members of society who have no connection with the church or who don’t practice their faith in the church anymore. It is also problematic to me the church has barred women from leadership roles in their communities on grounds in my view that are questionable.

A further problem to me is the implacable opposition of the church to contraceptive use. This is problematic in developing countries where the population is booming and causing a lot of social, economic and environmental problems. The problems caused by booming population growth (including crime, poverty, disease, etc) often cost many lives and ruin countless more through misery and squalor. The pressure the church often imposes on governments in developing countries where the bulk of the population is Catholic to ban access to abortion or family planning often leads to miserable outcomes, especially for the poorer in society.

I think the Church has made and continues to make some very bad policy decisions which cause great misery for a lot of people, from the heartache of people who remarry after ending a bad marriage and are barred from the Eucharist, to the victims of sexual abusers to women who die from botched illegal abortions in developing Catholic countries, to the families that are too big to support themselves and eke out a miserable existence in grinding poverty. For these reasons and the threat of things like excommunication or sacking that hangs over clerics or laypeople who don’t tow the party line, I find it hard to see how the church in the way it currently runs would be a organisation you would want to join.

As an Anglican, Greg, how would you grade your own church in your opinion as to whether or not someone ought to join it?

 

[KathleenGee]

I do agree in the post that the Catholic Church looks retrograde…but the American church is basically Irish. I am Irish Catholic. But I grew up in an Italian immigrant neighborhood and worked with Southern Italian priests who were very earthy and wholesome.

They also told me they did not have the social problems the north had. No women’s lib either.

There is nothing in the teachings of the Church to persecute gays.

The problem is that both homosexual and heterosexual activity outside of marriage is fornication, and that the Lord said those who fornicate cannot enter into kingdom of heaven.

We are all called to be chaste…and to grow in wholesomeness. I see things in myself that are off base and work on them to be a more wholesome person, to become more integrated with other people and not focus on myself.

Women are not called to the priesthood, but Catholic/Orthodox women mystics have demonstrated a much greater intimate union with Christ than the males.

And we are seeing the consequences of contraception—the almost daily scandals of adultery and divorce…just yesterday a married former football star is nailed by a found condom, the facilitation of free sex that is now down at the junior high level and the cheapening of the body of women, populations and nations dying out such as Japan, because women do not want to be mothers, the proliferation of pornography and the contraception used to prevent conception, the promotion of free sex vs virginity by organizations like Planned Parenthood that leads to more sexual activity and unwanted pregnancy, that in turns leads to abortion, and so on.

The free sex revolution went hand in hand with the pill. And we are seeing now so many damaged children and young adults infected with STD’s. In Sub-Sahara Africa, the biggest problem there outside the climate is polygamy practiced by both men and women…the condom can only work so much…the problem goes deeper into the human heart.

The spiritual life always teaches us to control our passions and to be continent. The wages of sin are death.

 

[joemccarron]

I’m surprised no one mentioned Thomas F. Madden with respect to the crusades and the inquisition. I think he is a great source for learning more about these events.
He also takes some time to explain how society worked at those times as well. He doesn’t just plop these events into the year 2010. Once you understand some things about the times of these events you will not be so turned off by them.

People in the middle ages took religion much more seriously than we do now.

audible.com/adbl/site/entry/offers/partnerPromotions.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&productID=BK_RECO_002528

amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0847694291/flatwave-20

BTW: I do not think people should let the decision to be a Catholic or not turn on whether they think the inquisition and the crusades were good or bad Ideas. But I would encourage people to learn a bit about the times when religion was important to our culture. I would especially encourage people to dig a bit deeper than the gloss over given by enlightenment (and post enlightenment) thinkers who labeled it the “Dark Ages.”

 

[distracted]

Of the three listed, I would respectfully suggest that Indulgences possibly present the greatest difificulties for Non–Catholics.

Speculatively,
Mick

all of them are just misunderstood by non-Catholics…

if they were u/stood thoroughly, they wouldn’t be a problem…

 

[distracted]

I do agree in the post that the Catholic Church looks retrograde…but the American church is basically Irish. I am Irish Catholic. But I grew up in an Italian immigrant neighborhood and worked with Southern Italian priests who were very earthy and wholesome.

They also told me they did not have the social problems the north had. No women’s lib either.

There is nothing in the teachings of the Church to persecute gays.

The problem is that both homosexual and heterosexual activity outside of marriage is fornication, and that the Lord said those who fornicate cannot enter into kingdom of heaven.

We are all called to be chaste…and to grow in wholesomeness. I see things in myself that are off base and work on them to be a more wholesome person, to become more integrated with other people and not focus on myself.

Women are not called to the priesthood, but Catholic/Orthodox women mystics have demonstrated a much greater intimate union with Christ than the males.

And we are seeing the consequences of contraception—the almost daily scandals of adultery and divorce…just yesterday a married former football star is nailed by a found condom, the facilitation of free sex that is now down at the junior high level and the cheapening of the body of women, populations and nations dying out such as Japan, because women do not want to be mothers, the proliferation of pornography and the contraception used to prevent conception, the promotion of free sex vs virginity by organizations like Planned Parenthood that leads to more sexual activity and unwanted pregnancy, that in turns leads to abortion, and so on.

The free sex revolution went hand in hand with the pill. And we are seeing now so many damaged children and young adults infected with STD’s. In Sub-Sahara Africa, the biggest problem there outside the climate is polygamy practiced by both men and women…the condom can only work so much…the problem goes deeper into the human heart.

The spiritual life always teaches us to control our passions and to be continent. The wages of sin are death.

…just yesterday a married former football star is nailed by a found condom??

he wasn’t convicted of fornication was he??

 

[distracted]

I don’t think the Inquisition, Crusades or the practice of Indulgences are necessarily a reason to not join the church. These events lie hundreds of years in the past and the Catholic Church itself for the most part tends to recognise them as wrong. to join.

they wre NOT wrong… not in their entirety… they were just things that were abused by some who.,… tho members of the Church… did not love Jesus first…

and thats a description that fits 90% of Catholics IMHO

Crusdades… the Muslims were attacking Christians and etc…

Indulgences: totally misunderstood… Our sufferings and sacrifices help people to get out of Purgatory… A $$ offering is a sacrifice … and if you are “poor” its also a suffering to give up $$ We suffer in the place of the one who deserves the punishment for his or her sins in Purg… We are in so doing being Other Christs… as the Lord told us to do…

Inquisition: VERY misunderstood… and only something like 3000 peple died during the Inquistion and i would say it was mostly their own fault… because if they recanted and went back to the orthodox Christian view… they would not be put to death… and the state was the entity that executed people, not the Church… The Church merely found out who was a heretic and who was not… the King was the one who decided to execute or not… and often priests and bishops tried to interced to stop the executions… were not listened to…

you can’t beleve anything you hear about the RCC from the media and non-Catholic sources… who… i might add, have an agenda… namely keeping people in Their churches…

 

[distracted]

also… as to the Inquisition…

Read Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus in the OT

talk about an Inquisition!!!

the whole reason the Israelites were told to put to death all those people was because they were “heretics”… worshipped false gods… essentially worshpped the devil… If you believe the Bible is the Word of God (and i do)… you have to realize that God does not take heresy lightly…

people who are heretics out of ignorance … thats one thing…

but when people are given the true teachings of theTrue Church…as they were when questioned at the Inquisition… and they still persist…

that is something God (in the OT) chose to deal with one way: Death

God doesn’t change…

no, I’m not saying heretics should be put to death today…

but we must never forget how God sees such things… how much He hates evil…

***Look at all the heresies in the world today (“homosexuality is not wrong”… some even saying “Jesus was gay”!!! “forniction is not a sin”… etc, etc)… all those are heresies and they are tolerated… and look where society is going…

into the sewer…

no wait… what am i saying…? its already there, for crying out loud…***

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Come out to California, Kathleen! The “American” Church is basically Mexican! Es la iglesia catholica en este momento aqui, mija! There isn’t an Irishman in sight out West! Either that or it’s the Portuguese church here…

I do agree in the post that the Catholic Church looks retrograde…but the American church is basically Irish. I am Irish Catholic. But I grew up in an Italian immigrant neighborhood and worked with Southern Italian priests who were very earthy and wholesome.

They also told me they did not have the social problems the north had. No women’s lib either.

There is nothing in the teachings of the Church to persecute gays.

The problem is that both homosexual and heterosexual activity outside of marriage is fornication, and that the Lord said those who fornicate cannot enter into kingdom of heaven.

We are all called to be chaste…and to grow in wholesomeness. I see things in myself that are off base and work on them to be a more wholesome person, to become more integrated with other people and not focus on myself.

Women are not called to the priesthood, but Catholic/Orthodox women mystics have demonstrated a much greater intimate union with Christ than the males.

And we are seeing the consequences of contraception—the almost daily scandals of adultery and divorce…just yesterday a married former football star is nailed by a found condom, the facilitation of free sex that is now down at the junior high level and the cheapening of the body of women, populations and nations dying out such as Japan, because women do not want to be mothers, the proliferation of pornography and the contraception used to prevent conception, the promotion of free sex vs virginity by organizations like Planned Parenthood that leads to more sexual activity and unwanted pregnancy, that in turns leads to abortion, and so on.

The free sex revolution went hand in hand with the pill. And we are seeing now so many damaged children and young adults infected with STD’s. In Sub-Sahara Africa, the biggest problem there outside the climate is polygamy practiced by both men and women…the condom can only work so much…the problem goes deeper into the human heart.

The spiritual life always teaches us to control our passions and to be continent. The wages of sin are death.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi distracted, it’s a real misnomer to think that everyone who disagrees with Catholic theology feels that way because of misunderstanding. I know very very bright Protestants and Orthodox better-educated in theological matters than humble yours truly here and they reject these teachings. I fully understand indulgences inside and out, used to even practice them, reject them now. I’m not uneducated or poorly-catechized. I just don’t believe in or agree with them. We have to admit, Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer and the rest all were theologians and geniuses who very thoroughly understood these things and openly rejected them for what they believed to be good reasons. It is possible to be a smart guy and disagree

all of them are just misunderstood by non-Catholics…

if they were u/stood thoroughly, they wouldn’t be a problem…

 

[eucharisteo]

Hi distracted, it’s a real misnomer to think that everyone who disagrees with Catholic theology feels that way because of misunderstanding. I know very very bright Protestants and Orthodox better-educated in theological matters than humble yours truly here and they reject these teachings. I fully understand indulgences inside and out, used to even practice them, reject them now. I’m not uneducated or poorly-catechized. I just don’t believe in or agree with them. We have to admit, Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer and the rest all were theologians and geniuses who very thoroughly understood these things and openly rejected them for what they believed to be good reasons. It is possible to be a smart guy and disagree

that’s simply not true. Martin Luther was intellegent but did not truly know all of these things as you say. He was a mere humble Augustinian Priest. It was his misguided pride that ultimately led him into heresy. He had plenty of good points to make but his method of deployment was unorthodox and quite radical at the time. He was no biblical scholar at all. Had he truly known the truth then he would be held quite culpable for his radical actions and frankly I wouldn’t want to be him in front of the Lord. None of us are so impressively intelligent that we can trump Jesus Christ himself, who established the Church and set out the guidelines for all to follow. Just because bad men and women do bad things and make bad choices doesn’t mean we aren’t supposed to follow the teachings of the Church. There is a truth, not many, therefore there are plenty of folks misleading and being misled. At best we can hope for their salvation through the mercy of God who knows their hearts. I say at best because we do not even know the final destiny of ourselves because we are very effective at deceiving ourselves. Only God knows our heart even better than we do. A mind compared to god is infinitely rediculous to compare and why there are so many prideful academians today that refuse to admit the fact that a belief in a super being is plausible. No, they choose themselves to be mini-gods instead. It gives them there own ability to create their own heaven, and thus their own truth, which is limited to this world because they are of the this world and not of God…

 

[KathleenGee]

That’s right, Gurney, you live in a Latino church.

I worked with a professional Hispanic catechist. I was out of the loop for awhile. Came by her church with a large Hispanic population now. The priests are working on integrity.

When she came in, she didn’t say hi or how are you doing…it was, ‘We are now a Hispanic parish’, and moved on…I never saw judgment in her like that before. Later talked to some caucasian parishionoers and asked them if this was now a Hispanic parish. They looked at me shocked and just shook their heads no in silence.

I do not like that…taking over and disregarding the people who have helped them and made this country attractive.

But the overall ethnic background was Irish in our country…go East, young man…

 

[Roy5]

My problem is not so much with the Crusades, the Inquisition or Indulgences, as much as all three involved serious mistakes by the church. They go back centuries, except that indulgences may be making a comeback.

My problem is with the insistence of the Church on total acceptance of all the doctrines and dogmas as taught by the Church. There are millions of us who want the freedom to think more freely without feeling like outcasts. We find that some of the teachings are simply unacceptable to us in these modern times.

Take some of the stories of the saints. How many of them are said to have levitated and bilocated and performed other quite unbelievable miracles? That was easy for people 1000 years ago to accept, as most of them also believed in ghosts and witches (and killed many 'witches', too). But can we believe that even such modern saints as Padre Pio levitated and bilocated, as the Church declared in canonizing him? 

 The danger is that once people find a chink or two in the Church's teachings they begin to question the Church itself. This is widespread in the world today, especially in Europe and North America. We need a 'big tent' church with a greater tolerance for different opinions and not the necessity of uniform, straight-jacket belief.

 

[eureka525]

Hello all! For me, the Inquisition and the Crusades may have been a ‘stumbling block’ in the past but I’ve realized that to stay away from a particular church/religion because of a historical misdeed would more than likely keep me from any church/religion! Humans are sinners, we all know this and every church has had leaders and members along the way who have done something ‘wrong’.

I think it is important for non-Catholics who have had to listen to anti-Catholic rhetoric to consider that just because there have been scandals and wars and whatever else, that doesn’t mean that the church is now completely corrupted or that their true purpose has been changed and therefore unable to be trusted. From what I see, there would be no Christians today without the persistence of the early Catholic church and her followers. That is not something to pass over lightly.

I know others have posted links. The short answer that I would respond with is that no, indulgences are not “extra credit.” They are actions that help heal our spirit and heal the greater Body of Christ (for sin wounds all). Penances are acts that demonstrate our resolve in true contrition and repentance. Other actions of spiritual growth–some of which indulgences are formally recognized and encouraged by indulgences–work as “love [that] covers a multitude of sins.”

Indulgences, on the other hand, are bit of a problem for me. That is not to say that I would not become a Catholic solely because of them, but rather it gives me pause. Of course, not being Catholic, I’m sure I don’t yet fully understand them.

Having read the posts and links here has helped in that department but from what I’ve learned so far, here are my issues with indulgences: The concept that God would not be all-forgiving upon our death if we had been fervent and faithful in life and truly remorseful for the wrongs we had committed against Him seems very contrary to the teachings I’m accustomed to hearing. Also, the concept that other sinful humans can determine for me what actions I must complete in order to have my sins purged, seems contrary to the teachings I’m accustomed to hearing. I have no Scriptures to offer in support of either side of this ‘argument’ and so if anyone does, please share!

Also, scriptural basis for purgatory? I presume that is where one would go if not enough indulgences were completed in life?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Who said God would not be all forgiving? Of course he would. We just get rid of some of our temporal punishment here on Earth as opposed to in Purgatory itself by performing an act of sincere pennance.

Frankly, all of this stuff shouldn’t matter to be completely honest. If what the Church teaches is true, then its true, regardless of what we think is the most “comfortable” religion. If I started a religion where my God simply accepted everybody into Heaven forever, no matter what, who said a witty limerick three times in a row and then had to do nothing else but claim they ere part of the religion of Limerickists I’m sure the religion would be very popular. That’s not to say the religion would be true; of course it wouldn’t.

It is the same with the Catholic Church. Are some teachings, like the doctrines of Hell, Satan the Tempter, Original Sin, and temporal punishment uncomfortable or troublesome? Of course they are! Is the idea of indulgence perhaps troublesome? I guess you can see it that way, though I don’t. But if it’s true, whether or not it’s all hunky dory or not really shouldn’t matter. We believe it because we know it’s true, not because it’s the most comfortable religion or anything like that.