Plenary Indulgence

[Sirach2]

I note your customary insolence, Sir Knight, implying that one does not obey. If that were true, why would I be sending communication for clarification?

I have been taught and formed for 30+ years in the Carmlelite tradition by the writings of the Order’s Saints who specifically wrote about prayer of all forms. Prayer is the primary charism of the Order to which I belong.

Vocal prayer was never understood by them as having to utter audibly, but rather as a prayer formula composed by others, whose words are used in one’s personal prayer to God, whether spoken publicly, audibly, or in the privacy of one’s heart. It has many varying uses and expressions all under the one heading “vocal.” LoTH is considered “vocal” prayer, yet there is no obligation to recite it audibly or in community in order to be in union with the entire liturgical prayer of the church. It simply calls for the proper breviary to use the same “vocal” words as the rest of the church.

Let’s just wait and see what the hierarchy has to say. Will you believe what** they say** or stand firm with your own interpretation? I am willing to be corrected, but while there is ambivalence, I seek clarification - do you? But I will not be convinced in a manner that removes all doubt by an internet poster who simply “says so.”

If it is not accurate that one may obtain a plenary without formally and audibly speaking the words of the rosary, then I will just switch to obtaining one by visitation to the Blessed Sacrament, reading scripture for half an hour, or doing the stations of the cross. These do not require anything audible, agreed?

 

[Spirithound]

When the Church states something, it uses the generally accepted definition of the terms UNLESS noted otherwise. The primary definition of “vocal” is “to utter by the voice”. There is nothing more to clarify. Are you going to ask if “vocal” really means “vocal”? Why would the Church say “vocal” if it didn’t mean “vocal”? The Church has already spoken on this matter.

Of course the Church meant “vocal”. She said “vocal”. Now stop using circular definitions.

• “The church says that I need to confess my sins to a priest in confession but I believe that God will forgive me my sins if I tell God I’m sorry in my heart and therefore I don’t need to go to confession.”

• “The Church says that the prayer is to be spoken audibly but God can hear my inner most thoughts so I don’t have to obey the church and utter the words by voice.”

… How very sad that people reject the authority of the Church when it does not fit in with what they want to believe.

These two ideas do not even deserve to be compared to each other. This is a discussion between faithful Catholics. The meaning of “vocal” was disputed using a clear argument stemming from those who could not technically fulfill the simple meaning of the word.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I note your customary insolence, Sir Knight,

And you, of course, are a model of Christian Charity especially toward those that have a differing opinion from your own. Since you opened the door to judging members’ comments, how would you classify your own misrepresentation of the facts in this thread? You accused “Vico” of not being open to any opinion but his own yet he has REPEATEDLY provided you with supporting references for his opinion while you have failed to provide a single link to support your position. In fact, the reference which you quoted from St. Teresa of Avila, actually supports “Vico”'s position rather than your own.

You chastised “Vico” for ‘presuming to teach others here’ before obtaining supporting proof yet “Vico” HAS provided supporting references while you have not. But, you presume to teach others here based on your opinion without any supporting references.

You have completely misrepresented the facts of this thread. “Vico” has supporting references for his position while you do not but you accuse him of basing everything on his own opinion when that really is where you are coming from.

implying that one does not obey.

The Church says that the prayers need to be “vocal”. The definition of “vocal” is ‘to utter by the voice’. The CCC states that “vocal” prayer needs to be external. Yet you keep saying that “vocal” prayer can be mental. How are you listening and obeying the Church? Kindly explain that.

If that were true, why would I be sending communication for clarification?

Why would you be challenging the Church’s teaching on something that it has already clearly defined?

I have been taught and formed for 30+ years in the Carmlelite tradition by the writings of the Order’s Saints who specifically wrote about prayer of all forms. Prayer is the primary charism of the Order to which I belong.

Vocal prayer was never understood by them as having to utter audibly,

Well, since you were taught by folks who had an incorrect understanding of this matter, that would explain your confusion.

Let’s just wait and see what the hierarchy has to say. Will you believe what** they say** or stand firm with your own interpretation?

“My” interpretation is supported by official Church documents which “Vico” was kind enough to post supporting links to. Your interpretation remains, as yet, unsupported.

How about if you start off by explaining why the Church would grant a special exception to the mute that they can gain the indulgence by reciting the prayers mentally when, according to you, that is an option that is already available to all of us?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course the Church meant “vocal”. She said “vocal”. Now stop using circular definitions.

And what does “vocal” mean? It means ‘to utter by the voice’. The CCC states that “vocal” prayer needs to be external. When the Church says “vocal”, THAT is what it means – the words need to be uttered by voice. The prayer needs to be external. A prayer said mentally is internal and is NOT vocal.

These two ideas do not even deserve to be compared to each other. This is a discussion between faithful Catholics. The meaning of “vocal” was disputed using a clear argument stemming from those who could not technically fulfill the simple meaning of the word.

Nor was it proper for one Catholic to compare another Catholic (who had a different opinion on this matter) with “sola scriptura causing splits into thousands of religions”.

 

[TrueLight]

It concerns me that so many pious acts are done not because of a desire for the Lord or for holiness, but to obtain indulgences.

For example, saying the rosary, reading the Bible, eucharistic adoration.

I don’t understand.

 

[Sirach2]

You’ve got it all wrong, True Light. It is done for LOVE - love of the poor suffering souls in purgatory - and deceased loved ones - and love of the Lord who asks our prayers for their suffrage. Loving HIm, and knowing His heart, one gladly performs the grant exercise with a pure intention, gratefully acknowledging His Infinite Mercy in giving the Church this authority on our behalf.

While many here are judging me, be aware that I am a daily communicant and am very blessed to obtain a plenary every day, if desired. That is why it deeply concerns me that I perform the specifics correctly, so that these souls may receive the benefit.

I have written to others now, besides the USCCB and AAA here at CAF, and posted on two Catholic forums besides this one. Let’s see how many really know what the church allows. So far, no definitive answer. The replies on the forum that have come so far, suggest that those who take the hard line are legalists.

 

[TrueLight]

You’ve got it all wrong, True Light. It is done for LOVE - love of the poor suffering souls in purgatory - and deceased loved ones - and love of the Lord who asks our prayers for their suffrage. Loving HIm, and knowing His heart, one gladly performs the grant exercise with a pure intention, gratefully acknowledging His Infinite Mercy in giving the Church this authority on our behalf.

Hmm. Beautifully put.

 

[Vico]

It concerns me that so many pious acts are done not because of a desire for the Lord or for holiness, but to obtain indulgences.

For example, saying the rosary, reading the Bible, eucharistic adoration.

I don’t understand.

Read the following and you will understand that it is not for forgiveness, which we already have.

***Catechism of the Catholic Church ***

**The punishments of sin **
**1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 **

**1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the "new man."85 **

INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA

It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God, from which there will shine forth throughout the world the sanctity and the splendor of his glory. The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.

…

The preeminence of charity in the Christian life is confirmed also by indulgences. For indulgences cannot be acquired without a sincere conversion of mentality (“metanoia”) and unity with God, to which the performance of the prescribed works is added. Thus the order of charity is preserved, into which is incorporated the remission of punishment by distribution from the Church’s treasury.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

 

[TrueLight]

Read the following and you will understand that it is not for forgiveness, which we already have.

Thank you. In fact I just read this today.

But I guess what bothers me is the list of things you can do for get indulgences like reading the bible. Reading the Bible should be something one longs to do. I would hate to be at Eucharistic adoration while thinking, “two birds in one stone.” Worship and an indulgence.

But I don’t want to derail this thread. I can go more into that later on in my journey.

 

[Vico]

Thank you. In fact I just read this today.

But I guess what bothers me is the list of things you can do for get indulgences like reading the bible. Reading the Bible should be something one longs to do. I would hate to be at Eucharistic adoration while thinking, “two birds in one stone.” Worship and an indulgence.

But I don’t want to derail this thread. I can go more into that later on in my journey.

It may actually mean more if one reads the Bible when disinclined to read it!

 

[Sirach2]

A bit of daylight is piercing the darkness. I found some information that confirms my understanding of vocal prayer as I was taught by the Carmelite saints, and as I understand is the “mind of the Church.” What puzzles me is why Vico omitted this when he was offering his views, because these points were there all along. Instead, he chose those definitions that corresponded with his views, rather than provide the fullness of the teaching.

One example is the CCC definition that he skipped over and went instead to #2704. Here’s the first in the series on vocal prayer, and it is important to note that the Our Father is called a “vocal prayer” - not because of being prayed aloud, but because it is the essential classification of that prayer expression.

2701 Vocal prayer is an essential element of the Christian life. To his disciples, drawn by their Master’s silent prayer, Jesus teaches a vocal prayer, the Our Father. He not only prayed aloud the liturgical prayers of the synagogue but, as the Gospels show, he raised his voice to express his personal prayer, from exultant blessing of the Father to the agony of Gesthemani.

The second reference is Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, OCD (Order Carmelites Discalced) who had this to say:

Private prayer is of two kinds: Vocal and Mental. We must not look for the distinguishing element of these two kinds of prayer in the native meaning of the words. Use of lips and vocal chords is not the essential note of vocal prayer, nor is all silent prayer necessarily mental prayer. Instead, we call that prayer Vocal that is made using prepared formulas, whereas Mental Prayer is that which wells up spontaneously from the depths of the heart.

I expressed concerned a few posts ago that Fr. Cocuzzi seemingly differed from Fr. Aumann. Had Vico presented the fullness of Fr. Bruno’s teaching, he would have prevented this difficulty and the hours I have spent researching, not to mention the perplexity of seeing an “apparent” contradiction to Carmelite teachings in one who should know them.

Finally, from Fr. Hardon’s Dictionary:

VOCAL PRAYER
The form of prayer that is a “conversation” with God, or the angels and saints, and is formed in words or equivalent symbols of expression. More technically, vocal prayer involves the use of some set formulas, since it is assumed that even when a person prays mentally he necessarily employs some form of at least internal speech. So that in practice the distinction between mental and vocal prayer is more a matter of emphasis, whether one’s own unrehearsed sentiments predominate (mental prayer) or a person rather employs verbal expressions that are not, at the time, the immediate product of communication with God (Fr. John Hardon Dictionary)

In the mind of the Church, who has always understood from her saints this classification between vocal, mental, and contemplative prayer, I am aligning myself with that “mind” rather than the literal dictionary definition that some are focusing on here. I await further confirmation from the sources I have contacted, and am prepared to shift gears if I am mistaken. For the sake of those who were confused by these posts, I pray we won’t have to wait too long.

 

[Vico]

…What puzzles me is why Vico omitted this when he was offering his views, because these points were there all along. Instead, he chose those definitions that corresponded with his views, rather than provide the fullness of the teaching… Had Vico presented the fullness of Fr. Bruno’s teaching, he would have prevented this difficulty and the hours I have spent researching, not to mention the perplexity of seeing an “apparent” contradiction to Carmelite teachings in one who should know them.
…
In the mind of the Church, who has always understood from her saints this classification between vocal, mental, and contemplative prayer, I am aligning myself with that “mind” rather than the literal dictionary definition that some are focusing on here. I await further confirmation from the sources I have contacted, and am prepared to shift gears if I am mistaken. For the sake of those who were confused by these posts, I pray we won’t have to wait too long.

I did not omit presentation of both definitions of vocal prayer. Questions to ponder:

1. Why is the word “recite” used throughout the indulgences manual?
2. Why is a norm 26 given as an exception for the deaf and blind, for private prayers, if this is the norm for those that are neither deaf nor blind?
   N26. Both the deaf and the mute can gain indulgences attached to public prayers if, together with the other faithful praying in the same place, they devoutly raise their mind and affections to God; regarding private prayers it is sufficient for them to recite the prayers mentally or express them with signs, or simply to read them without pronouncing the words.
3. Why did + Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, OCD, say that true vocal prayer must be audible:
   In the previous conference I stated that, according to my textbook, vocal prayer is comprised of *truly human *speech, and that one of the pre-requisites for that is to *actually *speak the words of the prayer. At that time I neglected to add a comment by the author:
   Hence, whoever merely reads the prayer with the eyes, or merely thinks the words of the prayer, would not be doing vocal prayer. Neither would one who does not move the lips, or who moves the lips without activating the vocal cords.
   However, even though true vocal prayer must be audible, it is not necessary that anyone but the one praying hear it.
4. Why does Fr. John Hardon say (from a seminar) that there are two kinds of vocal prayer, shown below, and that the cleanest theological definition is prayer that is perceptible to the senses?
5. In its broadest, generic sense, vocal prayer is prayer that follows a set form of words.
6. The other meaning is more specific. Vocal prayer is vocalized prayer. It is articulated prayer. It is prayer that can be heard, of course by the one who prays or by someone else. It is prayer that is perceptible to the senses. And that is the cleanest theological definition of vocal prayer.
7. Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say (in 2702 & 2703) this with regard to vocal prayer?
   “We are body and spirit, and we experience the need to translate our feelings externally.”

and

“He also wants the external expression that associates the body with interior prayer, for it renders him that perfect homage which is his due.”

And for historical perspective:

1. Why does The Divine Office: A Study of the Roman Breviary (1920 A.D.) By Rev. E.J. Quigley say:
   What kind of pronunciation is to be attended to in the recitation of the Divine Office? The pronunciation should be vocal—that is, there should be some sound, aliquis sonitus verborum, as St. Alphonsus writes (n. 162). Hence, to read the Breviary merely mentally or with the eyes only, does not satisfy the obligation.[A] Although the reader may not hear the sound produced, he must be careful to form with his lips every syllable. This must be done, not necessarily in a throaty way. The formation of the words clearly with the lips suffices.

A: The privilege of mental recitation was granted to the Friar Minor by Pope Leo X. and Pius V., but it is probable that the privilege was withdrawn by Pope Gregory XV. in 1622, in his letter Romanus Pontifex; and Urban VIII., 1635, withdrew all privileges granted vivae vocis oraculo. The text of the document granting the privilege is obscurely worded. Still, several theologians of repute maintain that the privilege still exists and extends to the whole office. This is taught by the Salaraenticenses, De hor. can. cap. 3, n. 55; Tamburini, Rodriguez, etc., others opposed this view of the privilege existing after Pope Urban’s letter Alias. This privilege extends to secular priests who are Franciscan tertiaries, if it exists at all.]

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books/quigley/divine-office-quigley-22.html

So there is a tradition and teaching in the Church for prayer to be an external expression with sound, with exceptions made for some to pray mentally only.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Vico = 1
Sirach2 = 0
The fact that a special exception is given to the mute seals the argument. Why would the Church grant a special exception to the mute that they can gain the indulgence by reciting the prayers mentally when, according to you, that is an option that is already available to all of us?

 

[Sirach2]

You are straining gnats, Sir Knight, while swallowing a camel.

Vico,
You hang your legal hat on literal dictionary interpretations and post “selected” paragraphs to prove your preconceived opinion. I find contrary material from the very priests you quoted, so that does not prove your case. It reminds me of those persons who can prove Mary had other sons through the literal interpretation of Jesus’ “brothers” rather than the hear the Church who knows what is truly meant, and having God’s authority to teach us the truth.

I have no intention of debating you, for you have caused enough grief for one day! When they canonize Frs. Hardon and Cocuzzi, I will pay attention. The Mind of the Church expressed through declaring saints as Doctors of the Church for their specific writings about prayer is where I will place my assurance of truth.

It is well-known throughout Catholicism by those who studied these works, that vocal prayer is not understood solely as speaking aloud, although audibility may be included as part of the expression and prayer form. I’m going to believe that is the Mind of the Church with regard to its Manual of Indulgences, until I hear from the USCCB to the contrary.

I’m exiting this thread pending replies from my inquiries.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are straining gnats, Sir Knight, while swallowing a camel.

And you are lacking in basic logic. Why would the Church, why would anyone, for that matter, provide an exception which is not different from the norm? They wouldn’t because there would be no need for the exception …

• … one must fast an hour before receiving the Eucharist but on Sunday one must fast an hour before receiving the Eucharist …
• … one must not be conscious of any mortal sin in order to receive communion except if attending Mass during Lent one must not be conscious of any mortal sin in order to receive communion …

It doesn’t make any sense to have an exception which is exactly the same as the norm …

• … one can obtain an indulgence by saying the prayers mentally but the mute can obtain the same indulgence by saying the prayers mentally …

Show me just ONE other place where the Church has an exception which is identical to the norm and then you’ll have a leg to stand on. Until then, you are just grasping at straws in an attempt to misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

Vico,
You hang your legal hat on literal dictionary interpretations and post “selected” paragraphs to prove your preconceived opinion. I find contrary material from the very priests you quoted, so that does not prove your case.

And you have done the exact same thing.

It is well-known throughout Catholicism by those who studied these works, that vocal prayer is not understood solely as speaking aloud, although audibility may be included as part of the expression and prayer form.

It is also well-known throughout Catholicism that the Church uses the commonly accepted definition of the terms that it uses unless it specifies otherwise and the commonly accepted definition of “vocal” is to utter through voice.

I’m going to believe that is the Mind of the Church with regard to its Manual of Indulgences, until I hear from the USCCB to the contrary.

So you will persist in your incorrect understanding until you hear otherwise? And how long do you think that it will take for the USCCB to get back to you? And what happens if they think that it is a trivial question which is already addressed? Will you to continue to persist in your incorrect understanding?