Justification for Indulgences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
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.
Click to expand...
thanks, Marduk. that is interesting.

I know the Scriptures speak of indulgences in terms of the authority to “bind and loose”
 
It seems to me that confession, penance, and indulgences are rather being mixed up here. While they are related, they are not precisely the same.

I also think it is very disingenuous to imply that comments about penances and indulgences and prayers from the dead by the early Church Fathers can be applied directly to their medieval and modern usage. What they were talking about had some real differences than the more modern practices, and they can’t be unequivocally equated in order to give authority.
 
The faith of Catholicism is transcendent, wholistic. It all depends on your spiritual hunger.

Only God can judge who can enter into heaven without purgatory.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
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.
Click to expand...
I pray you realize that what you will get here may be other than De Fide teaching. You may also get De Fide teaching. I assume that is what you want. In that regard I provide you the following. Luther did not deny Indulgences. This is from his thesis.
  1. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.
  2. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.
  3. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
  4. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
Click to expand...
The belief requires the admission that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. The belief is based on The communion of saints, The principle of vicarious satisfaction &The treasury of the Church. The following websites have as much information as required to understand the Doctrine of Indulgences better than Luther did. I read them, I understand them and rather than try to explain them to you assume, that I see you are a bright fellow, you can look these over and then simply explain them in the post.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp
 
One of the best books I’ve read on the subject is, Indulgences, their Origin, Nature, and Development by Cardinal Alexis Henri Marie Lépicier. Hard to find, you can read a scanned copy online at Google Books. Written over one hundered years ago, it is still fresh, and readable. The good Cardinal deals with the subject in response to the Anglican statements against Indulgences being an abuse not warrented by Scripture.

Cardinal Lepicier covers not only the Scriptural support for Indulgences but also the proper understanding of the place of Scripture as held by the Early Church. The practices of the Early Church, and the proper development and use of Indulgences. I’d quote from the book, however I feel that reading it through as it covers just about anything you can imagine, including the differences between the Catholic and Protestant (Lutheran, Anglican and Calvinist) ideas about sin and it’s effects as well as pardon, and satisfaction it would be much to easy to distort his work by typing a few lines here and there, rather than it being read in the context of the entire book.
 
Trebor135 said:
Try this, short and sweet.
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic website. You are correct, short and sweet. It all boils down to accepting the doctrine or rejecting the doctrine. No amount of protest, no scripture passage based on falllible interpretation will change my mind.
 
CopticChristian said:
This is a fantastic website. You are correct, short and sweet. It all boils down to accepting the doctrine or rejecting the doctrine. No amount of protest, no scripture passage based on falllible interpretation will change my mind.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If the Catholic Church doesn’t canonize Dave Armstrong (the author) one day, all will know the apocalypse is at hand!
 
hn160 said:
Dave Armstrong certainly like to stretch the Bible to make Bible verses fit whatever Catholic doctrine.😃
Click to expand...
The reality is that the Bible is not as Luther, Calvin and other founders of Protestantim promoted the authority over the Church, but rather a resource, given by God which the Authority ( also given by God) to the Church uses. To hold that the Bible is superior to the Magesterium is itself anti-biblical.

Armstrong is well aware of the problem with Sola Scriptura having been an Evangelical Protestant Apologist prior to his conversion. He saw how the Scriptures are contorted and twisted to fit what individuals want it to say, without the benefit of understanding the teaching and authority of the Apostles or Early Church, not to mention that that same authority is found in the Teaching Authority of the Church today, as Jesus promised in those same Scriptures. To demand as many of the Sola Scriptura crowd does of the Bible, devoid of context is quite a demand. In doing so each man woman and child becomes the authority, by which he replaces himself and his interpretation for the Bible. The Scriptures simply becomes a tool of his or her own bias, rather than a tool given to the Church by God to reveal His Good News.
 
Filioque said:
The reality is that the Bible is not as Luther, Calvin and other founders of Protestantim promoted the authority over the Church, but rather a resource, given by God which the Authority ( also given by God) to the Church uses. To hold that the Bible is superior to the Magesterium is itself anti-biblical.

Armstrong is well aware of the problem with Sola Scriptura having been an Evangelical Protestant Apologist prior to his conversion. He saw how the Scriptures are contorted and twisted to fit what individuals want it to say, without the benefit of understanding the teaching and authority of the Apostles or Early Church, not to mention that that same authority is found in the Teaching Authority of the Church today, as Jesus promised in those same Scriptures. To demand as many of the Sola Scriptura crowd does of the Bible, devoid of context is quite a demand. In doing so each man woman and child becomes the authority, by which he replaces himself and his interpretation for the Bible. The Scriptures simply becomes a tool of his or her own bias, rather than a tool given to the Church by God to reveal His Good News.
Click to expand...
To say that tradition and church teaching has superior teaching over Scripture is un-Biblical, why then doesn’t the Orthodox Churches ( Greek, Russian, etc. ) submit to Rome and their Magesterium?
 
hn160 said:
To say that tradition and church teaching has superior teaching over Scripture is un-Biblical, why then doesn’t the Orthodox Churches ( Greek, Russian, etc. ) submit to Rome and their Magesterium?
Click to expand...
I think that any Church that states in its teachings that tradition and church teaching are superior to scripture should turn in their chalices and abandon the people.

What I believe is that Tradition and Scripture are deposits of Faith and the Church uses both to teach.

I believe that the Church says it better but that is the sum of it.
 
hn160 said:
To say that tradition and church teaching has superior teaching over Scripture is un-Biblical, why then doesn’t the Orthodox Churches ( Greek, Russian, etc. ) submit to Rome and their Magesterium?
Click to expand...
Here I found it Lumen Gentium
  1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.
Click to expand...
 
hn160 said:
Dave Armstrong certainly like to stretch the Bible to make Bible verses fit whatever Catholic doctrine.😃
Click to expand...
  1. How do you feel Dave Armstrong has “stretched” Scripture?
  2. If all particularly Catholic doctrines must be explicitly laid out in the Bible for you to accept them, where do the Scriptures talk about the following beliefs you hold:
  • public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, John;
  • the Son is homo-ousios with respect to the Father, not homo-i-ousios;
  • private judgment of the individual Christian trumps Church authority; and
  • the sheer perspicuity of the written word is self-evident?
 
hn160 said:
Dave Armstrong certainly like to stretch the Bible to make Bible verses fit whatever Catholic doctrine.😃
Click to expand...
The same is also true of

The Branch Theory
Dispensationalism
Sanctification
Extrinsic Justification
Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
CredoBaptists
Jehovah Witness
Mormons

They are all of a similar type. I agree that stretching is common to many however since Armstrong is not of the Sola group he has as a backup the historic pillar and foundation of truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top