Point of view from a Catholic

[HelenRose]

I’d be interested to hear your defence of the sale of indulgences and the trade in relics.

There is no defense. St. Francis also fought against that while remaining in the church. The practice stopped not because of Luther but because of people and saints like St. Francis.

 

[PJM]

=Sweething2014;12453981]who has read Martin Luther’s 95 theses, his criticisms of the Church and the pope in 1517.

I’ve read the 95 thesis but not his critism of the Pope.

WHY?

 

[Kelt]

My point is that Martin Luther wanted to scotch the very idea of indulgences, not merely the abuses within indulgences.

I do not understand how any man can believe that he can relieve a fellow human being from any subsequent punishment for sin, after that person has died. Cutting down their time in purgatory?? Even the invention of this place purgatory, as some kind of divine waiting room mystifies me! Are they so arrogant, to think we can know the ‘mind’ of ‘God’ and how God might - or might not - punish? I know there’s a clause about ‘it’s still up to God in the end, whatever we decide’…but that makes it even more outrageous to sell indulgences! “There’s no guarantee…but pay the money just in case!”

 

[peace2u2]

I do not understand how any man can believe that he can relieve a fellow human being from any subsequent punishment for sin, after that person has died. Cutting down their time in purgatory?? Even the invention of this place purgatory, as some kind of divine waiting room mystifies me! Are they so arrogant, to think we can know the ‘mind’ of ‘God’ and how God might - or might not - punish? I know there’s a clause about ‘it’s still up to God in the end, whatever we decide’…but that makes it even more outrageous to sell indulgences! “There’s no guarantee…but pay the money just in case!”

The selling of indulgences was wrong and Luther was right in exposing such. That was a scandal and of course Judas Iscariot was the biggest scandalist.

With that said, indulgences is actually Biblical. The most famous biblical example of someone getting an indulgence is when Jesus, from the cross in Luke 23:43, gave the good thief complete remission for his sins, promising him that he would be in paradise that day.

This power of binding and loosing sins and punishment was given to the Church by Jesus, in Matthew 18:18, when he said “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” “Whatever” means anything, including punishment for sins.

Peace.

 

[Kelt]

The selling of indulgences was wrong and Luther was right in exposing such. That was a scandal and of course Judas Iscariot was the biggest scandalist.

With that said, indulgences is actually Biblical. The most famous biblical example of someone getting an indulgence is when Jesus, from the cross in Luke 23:43, gave the good thief complete remission for his sins, promising him that he would be in paradise that day.

This power of binding and loosing sins and punishment was given to the Church by Jesus, in Matthew 18:18, when he said “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” “Whatever” means anything, including punishment for sins.

Peace.

So this rather vague passage gives certain people in the church (in varying degrees, depending on their status at the time) a kind of divine right to decide whether God forgives a fellow man? You say ‘whatever’ means anything…but what? Carte Blanche to the men in the church to ‘play God’? Forgive me, but I find this idea incredible and concerning. I CAN understand how the church would have wanted to have been perceived to have this power, of course, but don’t understand why people of a less superstitious age should still believe it. After all, some of the popes and church elders who held this power throughout history were not just flawed, they were pretty evil! It was so, so easy to abuse such a power.
It is surely arrogance in the extreme to believe that a man can know the ‘mind’ of God?

 

[codefro]

The idea of donating a lot of money as an act of penance is in and of itself not problematic. It’s similar in principle to taking a vow of poverty.

Obviously the corruption of this practice was a big problem.

I think his beef was if the Pope could issue an indulgence to lower time in purgatory, then in the interest of charity, why not do it for free? Why have indulgences charged? He clearly had a point as that problemed was remedied pretty quickly after that. I agree though, Martin Luther was really crazy and was a perfect candidate for prozac.

 

[Duane1966]

To the OP just thought you might like to know that there were 22 translations of the Bible into German BEFORE Luther started his translation. After Luther tried to say his was the first Zwingli basically called him a liar.

I read years ago that the abuse of indulgences basically was happening only in a region of Germany.

 

[Duane1966]

So this rather vague passage gives certain people in the church (in varying degrees, depending on their status at the time) a kind of divine right to decide whether God forgives a fellow man? You say ‘whatever’ means anything…but what? Carte Blanche to the men in the church to ‘play God’? Forgive me, but I find this idea incredible and concerning. I CAN understand how the church would have wanted to have been perceived to have this power, of course, but don’t understand why people of a less superstitious age should still believe it. After all, some of the popes and church elders who held this power throughout history were not just flawed, they were pretty evil! It was so, so easy to abuse such a power.
It is surely arrogance in the extreme to believe that a man can know the ‘mind’ of God?

Vague? Seems incredibly clear to me.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So this rather vague passage gives certain people in the church (in varying degrees, depending on their status at the time) a kind of divine right to decide whether God forgives a fellow man? You say ‘whatever’ means anything…but what? Carte Blanche to the men in the church to ‘play God’? Forgive me, but I find this idea incredible and concerning. I CAN understand how the church would have wanted to have been perceived to have this power, of course, but don’t understand why people of a less superstitious age should still believe it. After all, some of the popes and church elders who held this power throughout history were not just flawed, they were pretty evil! It was so, so easy to abuse such a power.
It is surely arrogance in the extreme to believe that a man can know the ‘mind’ of God?

Frankly, if you don’t like the idea of men in the church being able to assess whether someone shows remorse for forgiveness of sins, then take it up with Jesus. He is the one that commanded it. (Matt 16, Matt 18, John 20).

As far as indulgences. It is not about a pronouncement from the church of cleansing from sin.
Indulgence is a prescription the church gives to the sick soul looking for healing. If they properly turn from sin and do the penance, the church says they can be assured of their forgiveness and cleansing.

It’s like this.

A smoker (sinner) with bronchitis goes to a doctor (church) for help. The doctor tells him to take medication A and exercise and stop smoking. The smoker takes the Meds but doesn’t stop smoking so he doesn’t get better.

That would be like someone doing an indulgence without the proper turning from their sins. If they remain in their sin, it’s like the smoker doing half of what the doctor prescribed.

Please note in this analogy, their is never fault in the doctor but everything is the responsibility of the patient.

With the abuse of indulgences in Luther’s time, it was like the doctor writing prescriptions without ever seeing the patient, or the doctor selling pills to those who don’t need it, or selling snake oil instead of medicine.

Hopefully the analogy helps you understand that the proper application of indulgences is quite reasonable.

 

[Scottgun]

The Church’s power to grant indulgences is part of the Deposit of Faith. One might as well deny the Trinity while they are at it.

 

[Scottgun]

The Church’s power to grant indulgences is part of the Deposit of Faith. To say otherwise, one might as well deny the Trinity while they are at it.

 

[PJM]

=Kelt;12454723]I do not understand how any man can believe that he can relieve a fellow human being from any subsequent punishment for sin, after that person has died. Cutting down their time in purgatory?? Even the invention of this place purgatory, as some kind of divine waiting room mystifies me! Are they so arrogant, to think we can know the ‘mind’ of ‘God’ and how God might - or might not - punish? I know there’s a clause about ‘it’s still up to God in the end, whatever we decide’…but that makes it even more outrageous to sell indulgences! “There’s no guarantee…but pay the money just in case!”

This is OFF TOPIC HERE

I just started a new thread in the “TRADITIONAL” Category.

PLEASE takw the time to read and comment on it:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Kelt]

Frankly, if you don’t like the idea of men in the church being able to assess whether someone shows remorse for forgiveness of sins, then take it up with Jesus. He is the one that commanded it. (Matt 16, Matt 18, John 20).

As far as indulgences. It is not about a pronouncement from the church of cleansing from sin.
Indulgence is a prescription the church gives to the sick soul looking for healing. If they properly turn from sin and do the penance, the church says they can be assured of their forgiveness and cleansing.

It’s like this.

A smoker (sinner) with bronchitis goes to a doctor (church) for help. The doctor tells him to take medication A and exercise and stop smoking. The smoker takes the Meds but doesn’t stop smoking so he doesn’t get better.

That would be like someone doing an indulgence without the proper turning from their sins. If they remain in their sin, it’s like the smoker doing half of what the doctor prescribed.

Please note in this analogy, their is never fault in the doctor but everything is the responsibility of the patient.

With the abuse of indulgences in Luther’s time, it was like the doctor writing prescriptions without ever seeing the patient, or the doctor selling pills to those who don’t need it, or selling snake oil instead of medicine.

Hopefully the analogy helps you understand that the proper application of indulgences is quite reasonable.

Thank you, it’s a pretty good analogy ( Reading the Catholic Encyclopaedia online is like reading the legalese you find at the bottom of a legal document.) so I can understand your ‘expert advice’/doctor part of the business - While the doctor does not do the curing - he knows which is the correct medicine…and can predict its effect…and while the churchman does not actually do the forgiving, he can advise on the penance…and predict its effect…right?
But, my sticking point is this… the doctor is dealing with science and CAN actually see and predict the results…the churchman has no more real understanding of ineffable God and what happens after death than anyone else does - or possibly can. He can say he predicts forgiveness…but how on earth (literally) can he? The church gave itself huge powers over the centuries following Jesus’ death, and accreted lots of beliefs and traditions - the indulgence business being one of them. The details of which were thrashed out by various councils no doubt.
Why is it necessary for a church official to ‘administer’ the indulgence? He seems to be acting as some sort of guarantor? And can/could therefore charge for a job done?
Why is this not something a person can do for him/herself albeit with some advice from their church official/confidante? Whatever vague statement is taken from the gospel of Matthew - written some decades after the event - I would argue that no man can see into the mind of God…and therefore can’t set himself up to dispense indulgences.
Did Luther object to just the abuse? Or did he object to the idea?