Justification for Indulgences?

[FabiusMaximus]

Hi. I’m aware of the basics concerning indulgences, that they are a remission of temporal punishment for sincerely contrite believers. I’m also aware that they were abused, and that they have been essentially curtailed post-Reformation. But I’m not here to discuss that.

I just would like to know: where did the Roman Catholic Church come up with the doctrine/dogma? Is it in the early Fathers’ writings? It is scriptural?

What about the ‘treasury of merits’?

Thank you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

I just would like to know: where did the Roman Catholic Church come up with the doctrine/dogma? Is it in the early Fathers’ writings? It is scriptural?

The Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church did not invent the concept of indulgences. In the early Church, serious sins resulted in a temporal punishment in the form of deprivation of the Eucharist or other penalties. By virtue of the evidence of a penitent’s life through the penance he or she has done, a bishop had the authority, through the power of the keys, to lessen or completely remove the temporal punishment that was the normal canonical due for the sin committed. This act of the bishop was known as an indulgence. St. Basil and some other Fathers speak of this in their writings.

The Church universal always believed that a soul even after death can experience further cleansing or purification by Grace that perfects or divinizes. It was also generally believed that this cleansing or process of perfection can come in the form of chastisements. Further, it was also generally believed that the prayers of the Church on earth could aid souls in the afterlife in their process of perfection. Since the chastisements in the afterlife were believed to come to an end upon the Second Coming, the West regarded them as “temporal punishments.” It seems a logical step to believe that since the Church can grant indulgences to mitigate temporal punishment on earth, then the Church can grant indulgences to mitigate temporal punishment in the afterlife.

What about the ‘treasury of merits’?

I see merits as packets of Grace that aid in the process of divinization or holiness. As the Lord taught us, the more the servant has, the more he will be given. There is nothing inherently heterodox about the teaching. The objection is normally that it can lead to a spiritually unhealthy concept that one can “calculate” one’s way to salvation. That is not what the doctinre teaches, but it has the danger of that misinterpretation.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Philotheatoo]

So…indulgences have been curtailed? Or, did I read that wrong (hopefully)?

 

[fermat]

Practice of alms giving in relation to indulgences has been curtailed because of the scandal it caused. There is nothing wrong with giving alms and earning an indulgence, but the entire concept was poisoned in the Reformation.

Indulgences are alive and well. Here is list of some indulgences.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Reformation did not cause the discontinue of indulgences.

People can gain a plenary indulgence going on a pilgrimage…indulgences are attached when we take special effort to use that time to grow in Christ and to practice self-denial, so we can live a more Christian life.

Many times indulgences are attached to the saving and redeeming power and worship of Christ at Mass…without belief in the Mass…the greatest power relased into the world 24 hours a day, the Perpetual Sacrifice Melchizidek first referred to, it is pretty hard to further explain.

I am pretty much burned out explaining indulgences and getting nowhere…atleast with past posters on the subject.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

The Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church did not invent the concept of indulgences. In the early Church, serious sins resulted in a temporal punishment in the form of deprivation of the Eucharist or other penalties. By virtue of the evidence of a penitent’s life through the penance he or she has done, a bishop had the authority, through the power of the keys, to lessen or completely remove the temporal punishment that was the normal canonical due for the sin committed. This act of the bishop was known as an indulgence. St. Basil and some other Fathers speak of this in their writings.

The Church universal always believed that a soul even after death can experience further cleansing or purification by Grace that perfects or divinizes. It was also generally believed that this cleansing or process of perfection can come in the form of chastisements. Further, it was also generally believed that the prayers of the Church on earth could aid souls in the afterlife in their process of perfection. Since the chastisements in the afterlife were believed to come to an end upon the Second Coming, the West regarded them as “temporal punishments.” It seems a logical step to believe that since the Church can grant indulgences to mitigate temporal punishment on earth, then the Church can grant indulgences to mitigate temporal punishment in the afterlife.

I see merits as packets of Grace that aid in the process of divinization or holiness. As the Lord taught us, the more the servant has, the more he will be given. There is nothing inherently heterodox about the teaching. The objection is normally that it can lead to a spiritually unhealthy concept that one can “calculate” one’s way to salvation. That is not what the doctinre teaches, but it has the danger of that misinterpretation.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

It does, thank you. But I don’t understand how a priest is supposed to ‘calculate’ the temporal punishment a person receives? How much must be remitted? How can anyone know what the punishment in Purgatory will be, let alone how much can be reduced from it?

Why does the Orthodox Church not believe in indulgences?

 

[hn160]

Where is it in Scripture that the doctrine of Indulgences is found? After all Church Fathers often contradicted each other.

 

[TrueLight]

The teaching on indulgences is one of a growing list of items, I will need to put to the side for now.

 

[mardukm]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

But I don’t understand how a priest is supposed to ‘calculate’ the temporal punishment a person receives? How much must be remitted?

The ideas you propose here are Latin theologoumena. If you read any standard Latin Catholic explanation of indulgences, you will discover that their doctrine has nothing to do with what you say here. What you have stated are the private opinions of individuals, and should not be taken as the teaching of the Latin Catholic Church. Feel free to criticize such private opinions, but please don’t make the mistake of assuming it is the actual formal teaching of the Latin Catholic Church.

How can anyone know what the punishment in Purgatory will be, let alone how much can be reduced from it?

You can look at it as what is reduced in terms of punishment or chastisements - or you can look at as what is gained in terms of holiness and Justice in the eyes of God. Eastern and Oriental Catholics (and also a lot of Latin Catholics) would prefer to see it according to the latter, while the former view is pretty much confined to the Latin Catholic Church.

Why does the Orthodox Church not believe in indulgences?

Certain portions of the Eastern Orthodox Church used indulgences up until the 20th century. They were known as synchorochartia (do a google search on it for more info). Modern EO polemicists, having a rabid need to demonstrate that they are so dramatically different from Catholics, like to pretend that indulgences was an invention of the Latin Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. But the truth is that the practice was and is thoroughly patristic.

The distinction between the Eastern/Oriental understanding, on the one hand, and the Latin teaching, on the other, is just one of mere terminology. Generally, the Eastern/Oriental Tradition will agree with Latins that the prayers and sacrifices of the Church on earth can aid in the process of perfection/holiness of souls in the afterlife. Latins incorporate such acts in its teaching on “indulgences,” while Eastern/Orientals don’t use that terminology when referring to the afterlife. So the underlying concepts are the same - it is only the terminology that is different.

As noted, the main objection is that there is a danger of assuming you can “calculate” your way to heaven. That is not, however, what the doctrine on indulgences actually teaches. But anti-Catholics always like to exaggerate the matter.

I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia has a good explanation of indulgences:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

The ideas you propose here are Latin theologoumena. If you read any standard Latin Catholic explanation of indulgences, you will discover that their doctrine has nothing to do with what you say here. What you have stated are the private opinions of individuals, and should not be taken as the teaching of the Latin Catholic Church. Feel free to criticize such private opinions, but please don’t make the mistake of assuming it is the actual formal teaching of the Latin Catholic Church.

You can look at it as what is reduced in terms of punishment or chastisements - or you can look at as what is gained in terms of holiness and Justice in the eyes of God. Eastern and Oriental Catholics (and also a lot of Latin Catholics) would prefer to see it according to the latter, while the former view is pretty much confined to the Latin Catholic Church.

Yes but how can we know that there is a reduction in punishment? And how are the punishments drawn up? Why can a priest say ‘say three hail Marys’ or ‘give $1000 to a charity’?

Certain portions of the Eastern Orthodox Church used indulgences up until the 20th century. They were known as synchorochartia (do a google search on it for more info). Modern EO polemicists, having a rabid need to demonstrate that they are so dramatically different from Catholics, like to pretend that indulgences was an invention of the Latin Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. But the truth is that the practice was and is thoroughly patristic.

It is still an Orthodox belief at all or has it been entirely withdrawn?

The distinction between the Eastern/Oriental understanding, on the one hand, and the Latin teaching, on the other, is just one of mere terminology. Generally, the Eastern/Oriental Tradition will agree with Latins that the prayers and sacrifices of the Church on earth can aid in the process of perfection/holiness of souls in the afterlife. Latins incorporate such acts in its teaching on “indulgences,” while Eastern/Orientals don’t use that terminology when referring to the afterlife. So the underlying concepts are the same - it is only the terminology that is different.

As noted, the main objection is that there is a danger of assuming you can “calculate” your way to heaven. That is not, however, what the doctrine on indulgences actually teaches. But anti-Catholics always like to exaggerate the matter.

I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia has a good explanation of indulgences:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Blessings,
Marduk

OK, thank you, this makes sense. What I don’t see however is why can the Pope give a plenary indulgence and only bishops can give the partial ones? Is that in Patristic writing too? In Scripture? Or has it just been done this way according to the formal hierarchy?

I suppose this would be a side issue, but, doesn’t an indulgence reduce the efficacy of Christ? If we’re constantly scrambling to be indulged or to fulfill a penance, doesn’t it mean that I’m, in essence, in a hopeless position? It kind of seems that it reduces the power of Christ for us. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t subscribe to one of the more radical Evangelical belief that a little salvation prayer forgives all sins ‘past, present, and future’ but shouldn’t a contrite heart and acknowledgment of sin be sufficient?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Scripture?

The Keys of Heaven to bind and loose.

“We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans 12:5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works of all the rest—a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the sinful members… New Avent. Here’s the complete article which is still used by the CC today.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7l6EgutNcxwAAvVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1aG1pazBhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwN18xODA-/SIG=11ub49rq5/EXP=1307301604/**http%3a//www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Then to this would take us to Intercession of the saints which is Christian doctrine held by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican churches, that deceased saints and the Blessed Virgin Mother interceed etc. Its also Biblical.

 

[hazcompat]

Where is it in Scripture that the doctrine of Indulgences is found? After all Church Fathers often contradicted each other.

1 Matthew 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

Yes but how can we know that there is a reduction in punishment?

I can’t answer that. I am an Oriental Catholic, not a Latin Catholic. I adhere to the “gain in holiness” position, rather than the “reduction in punishment” position. So I cannot answer for something I don’t understand. What I do believe is that the two positions are phenomenonally actually equivalent, since a reduction in something negative is always a gain in something positive.

And how are the punishments drawn up?

Punishments or chastisements for sins have always been in the power of the Church to draw up. Conversely, granting indulgences from such punishments or chastisements have likewise always been in the power of the Church.

Why can a priest say ‘say three hail Marys’

From what I’ve read, it is not the saying of the Hail Mary’s that is efficacious, but how one prays it. Ideally, it is supposed to be done with proper meditation while reflecting on the gravity of your sins. Saying specific prayers is an aid to developing one’s spiritual strength - it is a spiritual exercise, not a mere repetition of words.

or ‘give $1000 to a charity’?

I suppose a priest would give that as a penance if the penitent actually stole $1000. In truth, that seems like a rather exaggerated example.

It is still an Orthodox belief at all or has it been entirely withdrawn?

No one can say for sure. Some Orthodox claim it is not as an overreaction against the Latin Catholic Church, and they pretend to be able to have the authority to hurl accusations of heterodoxy against the Latin Catholic Church on the matter. Other Orthodox who are more knowledgeable of the Church Fathers are not so reactionary. You might find Orthodox polemicists claim that the Reformation was a result of the innovation of indulgences in the Latin Catholic Church, but that is far from the truth.

What I don’t see however is why can the Pope give a plenary indulgence and only bishops can give the partial ones? Is that in Patristic writing too? In Scripture? Or has it just been done this way according to the formal hierarchy?

This is a relatively recent circumstance in the history of the Church. Bishops used to be able to give plenary indulgences as well, but ever since the indulgence controversy in the late Middle Ages, the Pope has restricted the giving of plenary indulgences to himself. Doesn’t that make sense from an administrative standpoint? Doesn’t it make sense that if something is abused, the boss would curtail its use?

I suppose this would be a side issue, but, doesn’t an indulgence reduce the efficacy of Christ? If we’re constantly scrambling to be indulged or to fulfill a penance, doesn’t it mean that I’m, in essence, in a hopeless position? It kind of seems that it reduces the power of Christ for us. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t subscribe to one of the more radical Evangelical belief that a little salvation prayer forgives all sins ‘past, present, and future’ but shouldn’t a contrite heart and acknowledgment of sin be sufficient?

The Catholic teaching is that the efficacy of merits/indulgences has its very source from the sacrifice of Christ Himself. Without the power of that Sacrifice, merits/indulgences have absolutely no value. So merits/indulgences, far from replacing the Sacrifice, actually depends on the Sacrifice.

No human work has value before God apart from the saving work of Christ on the Cross. The spiritual value of our good works is due to the fact that we have the life of Christ in us. If we did not have the life of Christ in us, our works would have no salvific value whatsoever. In other words, the Grace of the Cross empowers our own works to have value in the eyes of God. And from those Grace-empowered works comes the Catholic concept of merit and its applicability as indulgences.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

The oral tradition of Jesus Christ was passed down to His apostles, and they in turn appointed successors who would be faithful to Christ and His teachings.

How the faith was understood, integrated and live out, is the working of the Holy Spirit in union with Scripture, called Tradition.

Sacred Scripture and Tradition–faith lived out in the community of believers–are inseparable…

Indulgences came out of the practices of the Church. It is most likely that even the apostles themselves did not fully understand the depth of the Memorial of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and our communion with Him.

The use of sacramentals also went back to earliest times, for example, followers of St. Jude carrying an image of him as an endearment and strengthening of seeing Christ’s witness in living out his faith.

We are applying ourselves to draw on the merits of the Mass; there is no one person determing…it is the work of Rome and the communion of all bishops that such decisions are built and defined that also draw on the needs of the faithful.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

From what I’ve read, it is not the saying of the Hail Mary’s that is efficacious, but how one prays it. Ideally, it is supposed to be done with proper meditation while reflecting on the gravity of your sins. Saying specific prayers is an aid to developing one’s spiritual strength - it is a spiritual exercise, not a mere repetition of words.

Is this in ECF writings as well?

I suppose a priest would give that as a penance if the penitent actually stole $1000. In truth, that seems like a rather exaggerated example.

I just made it up as an example in order to find out why a priest would communicate a particular ‘penance’ to do. Why isn’t the person forgiven right then and there? I suppose a person should do something to strengthen himself spiritually, but should it be mandated instead of facultative?

This is a relatively recent circumstance in the history of the Church. Bishops used to be able to give plenary indulgences as well, but ever since the indulgence controversy in the late Middle Ages, the Pope has restricted the giving of plenary indulgences to himself. Doesn’t that make sense from an administrative standpoint? Doesn’t it make sense that if something is abused, the boss would curtail its use?

This is fair. You’re right.

The Catholic teaching is that the efficacy of merits/indulgences has its very source from the sacrifice of Christ Himself. Without the power of that Sacrifice, merits/indulgences have absolutely no value. So merits/indulgences, far from replacing the Sacrifice, actually depends on the Sacrifice.

No human work has value before God apart from the saving work of Christ on the Cross. The spiritual value of our good works is due to the fact that we have the life of Christ in us. If we did not have the life of Christ in us, our works would have no salvific value whatsoever. In other words, the Grace of the Cross empowers our own works to have value in the eyes of God. And from those Grace-empowered works comes the Catholic concept of merit and its applicability as indulgences.

But what I mean is that doesn’t this kind of system detract from it in a way in that we are still consistently scrambling to ‘add to the balance’ so-to-speak in order to appear more acceptable? Don’t get me wrong I believe good works are valuable for Christian spiritual life, but if the Church mandates a penance, and grants indulgences, and a Christian must keep in lock-step to make sure he or she confessed properly before death, doesn’t this effectively reduce what Christ did? Doesn’t it just keep you fighting a battle that is too overwhelming to win? How do you find peace knowing that you never know whether you ‘did enough’? Wouldn’t it keep you constantly trembling in fear that you may not really be saved or have any hope to enter heaven?

Please don’t take this as a swipe against the RCC. It’s just an honest question. Because I feel that in such a reality, I’d be terrified on my deathbed that perhaps I haven’t done enough, or if I’ve forgotten to confess a particular sin, etc.

Oh, and I haven’t said it, but I am grateful that you’ve responded with such great detail. Thank you.

 

[Alex_Luciano]

Is this in ECF writings as well?

I just made it up as an example in order to find out why a priest would communicate a particular ‘penance’ to do. Why isn’t the person forgiven right then and there? I suppose a person should do something to strengthen himself spiritually, but should it be mandated instead of facultative?

This is fair. You’re right.

But what I mean is that doesn’t this kind of system detract from it in a way in that we are still consistently scrambling to ‘add to the balance’ so-to-speak in order to appear more acceptable? Don’t get me wrong I believe good works are valuable for Christian spiritual life, but if the Church mandates a penance, and grants indulgences, and a Christian must keep in lock-step to make sure he or she confessed properly before death, doesn’t this effectively reduce what Christ did? Doesn’t it just keep you fighting a battle that is too overwhelming to win? How do you find peace knowing that you never know whether you ‘did enough’? Wouldn’t it keep you constantly trembling in fear that you may not really be saved or have any hope to enter heaven?

Please don’t take this as a swipe against the RCC. It’s just an honest question. Because I feel that in such a reality, I’d be terrified on my deathbed that perhaps I haven’t done enough, or if I’ve forgotten to confess a particular sin, etc.

Oh, and I haven’t said it, but I am grateful that you’ve responded with such great detail. Thank you.

It does not reduce Christ’s redemptive work, if anything it is an expression of it. When we sin we do so not only against God but also against the Church he founded and one another. Indulgences provide us with acts of reparation to God. Christ’s sacrifice has permitted us to approach the Father with spiritual sacrifices which properly united to Christ’s are efficacious in our sanctification.

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24)

Is anything lacking in Christ’s sacrifice? Of course not. But Christ has allowed us to take part in his sufferings with our own afflictions.

Also you have brought up the issue of time. It used to be that the Church assigned days or years to indulgences. All this meant to do was give the penitent an idea of the relative importance or “power” of different prayers and practices. For example, a simple prayer to a saint might have had a 500 days indulgence while a prayer to the Holy Spirit may have 5 years indulgence. Since the new Enchiridion of Indulgences was released after the Council we only have partial and plenary indulgences with no days attached.

Something you must stay away from is scrupulosity. Understood in the right light these practices are meant to foster devotion and serve as a means of sanctification. I myself have the Raccolta (a pre-Conciliar list of indulgenced prayers and devotions) and use it frequently. It has been a great fountain of graces. As Christians we know that Christ has redeemed us. However, this gift demands that we live a life of virtue. We must take up our cross and deny ourselves (Matt 16:24) and also we must do what the Lord has commanded (James 1:22, Rom 2;13…) so that we are justified.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[hn160]

1 Matthew 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

peace

That has nothing to do with indulgences, but with the priest/pastor forgiving sins in confession.

 

[mardukm]

Dear FabiusMaximus,

Is this in ECF writings as well?

Yes. I don’t have a lot of time, so I’ll just quote one early Father, St. Ambrose of Milan, as a solid example: "Let, then, nothing call you away from penitence, for this you have in common with the saints, and would that such sorrowing for sin as that of the saints were copied by you…Does anyone think that it is penitencewehre there still exists the striving after earthly honours? It must be broken by groans, interreputed by sights, put aside by prayers…"

I just made it up as an example in order to find out why a priest would communicate a particular ‘penance’ to do. Why isn’t the person forgiven right then and there?

This is a very common misconception that non-Catholics have about the Catholic teaching on penance. The Catholic doctrine is that penance is extra-sacramental. The forgiveness of sins comes BEFORE the performance of penance. In other words, forgiveness of sins does not come because one does the penance, but is given by the priest AFTER the absolution (i.e., the forgiveness of sins). The performance of penance gives evidence of humility and contrition in the eyes of God and the Church.

I suppose a person should do something to strengthen himself spiritually, but should it be mandated instead of facultative?

Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox generally shy away from penance. I’ve read both Protestants and individual EO argue that penance somehow takes away from the Sacrifice of Christ. But that is a straw man argument because, as stated above, penance is EXTRA-sacramental. It is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but only for the exercise of the spirit unto holiness. The Oriental Orthodox and Latin Catholic understanding is that penance is necessary, because, as fallen human beings, we need it as an appropriate spiritual exercise for the sake of holiness - it is medicine for the soul. As the book of Hebrews teaches us, chastisements are meant for the very purpose of sharing in the holiness of God. So we should not shrink from the penance given to us by the Church through her priests. To repeat, penance is no necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but it is necessary for the upbuilding of the Christian spirit.

But what I mean is that doesn’t this kind of system detract from it in a way in that we are still consistently scrambling to ‘add to the balance’ so-to-speak in order to appear more acceptable?

Penance is not meant to make one acceptable to God. Acceptability in the eyes of God depends on contrition for sins. But I ask you, and please answer - what truly contrite person would not do penance once he/she realizes the utter gravity of offending God through sin? Do you have a loved one? When you grievously offend or wrong your loved one, do you feel in your heart of hearts that merely “saying sorry” is enough? Do you not feel a need to demonstrate how truly sorry you are, even if only to assuage your guilt? If you can feel that for a loved one on earth, how much more for God in heaven, who deserves our love more than anyone on earth?

When you grievously offend a loved one, do you not readily find yourself offering “what can I do to make it up?” Do we love God less? So we should not shrink from the penance that the Church gives. But God needs nothing from us. God is so great and so good that the value of the penance we do goes not to assuage God, but rather goes towards the perfection of our souls. Our penance is not for God’s benefit, but for our benefit. And therein lies the value of penance/merits/indulgences. None of this is for the sake of forgiveness of sins - that can only come from the Blood; rather, penance/merits/indulgences are for the sake of the perfection of our souls. And, as previously stated, such penance/merits/indulgences are efficacious for our souls not in place of, but precisely because of Christ’s Sacrifice.

Don’t get me wrong I believe good works are valuable for Christian spiritual life, but if the Church mandates a penance, and grants indulgences, and a Christian must keep in lock-step to make sure he or she confessed properly before death, doesn’t this effectively reduce what Christ did?

As stated, penance/indulgences/merit is necessary not for forgiveness of sins, but for the holiness/perfection of our souls. Do you see the difference?

Doesn’t it just keep you fighting a battle that is too overwhelming to win? How do you find peace knowing that you never know whether you ‘did enough’?

I find peace in doing penance since I am the worst of sinners and need that spiritual remedy. People are willing to do so much to be physically healthy; I don’t understand why people would shy away from doing things to be spiritually healthy.

Wouldn’t it keep you constantly trembling in fear that you may not really be saved or have any hope to enter heaven?

I don’t have that fear because I have hope in Christ. If one does not have that hope, doing or not doing penance is not going to make one iota of difference in one’s mental state.

Because I feel that in such a reality, I’d be terrified on my deathbed that perhaps I haven’t done enough,

Enough what?

if I’ve forgotten to confess a particular sin,

The CC teaches that ALL sins, even ones you are not aware of, are forgiven when one confesses with contrition. So I don’t know why any Catholic would have this fear.

Oh, and I haven’t said it, but I am grateful that you’ve responded with such great detail. Thank you.

You are welcome. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Modestly_Anne]

Yes but how can we know that there is a reduction in punishment? And how are the punishments drawn up? Why can a priest say ‘say three hail Marys’ or ‘give $1000 to a charity’?

It is still an Orthodox belief at all or has it been entirely withdrawn?

OK, thank you, this makes sense. What I don’t see however is why can the Pope give a plenary indulgence and only bishops can give the partial ones? Is that in Patristic writing too? In Scripture? Or has it just been done this way according to the formal hierarchy?

I suppose this would be a side issue, but, doesn’t an indulgence reduce the efficacy of Christ? If we’re constantly scrambling to be indulged or to fulfill a penance, doesn’t it mean that I’m, in essence, in a hopeless position? It kind of seems that it reduces the power of Christ for us. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t subscribe to one of the more radical Evangelical belief that a little salvation prayer forgives all sins ‘past, present, and future’ but shouldn’t a contrite heart and acknowledgment of sin be sufficient?

I don’t mean to presume, but I do wonder if it is possible that you misunderstand this belief somewhat. It is not saying that little prayer that saves you. It is the faith with which that prayer is said. It is the belief and acceptance of Christ as your Savior that you express with that prayer. It is your acknowledgment that his death on the cross was the price paid for our sins. It is the realization that there is nothing we can do to earn that free gift by our own means, but that it his gift given to us through his grace.

Acceptance of course will mean, loving Christ with our whole heart, body, mind and soul which thus will include having a repentant heart for your past sins, seeking to live a holy life while serving him, and when stumbling as we humans are prone to do accepting his forgiveness as told in his word

As we read in Romans 10, 9-13

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. 11 For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 13 **For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. **

If we TRULY believe and have faith in his promise and call on the Lord, we will be lead to do his will and he will lead us into salvation.

I might add that I’m sure that misunderstandings on indulgences within the Catholic Church are equal to misunderstandings of the belief “once saved, always saved”.

Both can lead to poor fruit. The former with the idea that they can sin and then work to gain an indulgence to get them out of it, so to speak, the latter with the idea, 'well I’m saved, so I can just sin away and no matter what I’m guaranteed a spot in heaven.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,
The idea of heaven is that it is a place of perfection. And to enter, one must be perfect
and have paid satisfaction(justice) for their part in wrong doing. For example, a son takes
his father’s car out for a joy ride and damages a quarter pannel. Dad forgives him but
the boy is grounded. In a similiar way we are forgiven but we still owe satisfaction for what
we did.

For more info on indulgences: www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/plenary.htm
see www.catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp​

My will to yours incline, until this selfish part of me, glows with your fire divine. Hymn