Prayer of Pope to Mary: To Whom Would the Apostles have pointed him ..Mary or Jesus?

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Of course the text doesn’t mention Rome or the successor to Peter’s role as chief pastor.

I was just makin’ sure that was clear.

itsjustdave1988:

It does firmly establish in Scripture the Primacy of Peter, among the ministers of God. This is NT ecclesiology which points to sacerdotal unity within the NT Church, having a chief pastor of the universal Church, Peter.

There’s no more sacerdotal system; read Hebrews.

The early church went off the rails early, thinking that it replaced Israel. The “leadership” pretty much shunned the early Jewish Christians, and set out on their own—sounds eerily like the reformation; guess there’s a bit of protestant in us all—and, in setting out on their own, they modeled the NT church after the OT sacrificial system under the guise of sacraments, and sacerdotalism, complete with a sacrifice, works, etc.

Here’s a book about it: Israel and the Church, the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology

itsjustdave1988:

This Scriptural fact begs the question: Shouldn’t today’s Church also have ONE chief pastor of the universal Church, as was the case in NT times?

Only if you believe in a papacy.

itsjustdave1988:

If this is how Christ built his Church, according to Scripture, shouldn’t the continuation of this Church built by Christ and present in the world today also be led by ONE chief pastor, the historic successor of the pastorship of Peter, the sign of sacerdotal unity established by Christ?

You say Christ ”Built His Church,” that’s wrong.

Christ’s church is still in the process of being built, the building isn’t finished.

itsjustdave1988:

As history shows, that’s precisely what the men of the 1st and 2nd century, who were taught by the apostels themselves believed. These early Church Fathers believed that the ecclesiology established by Christ was intended to continue, in Peter’s successor. Consequently, Linus was the chief pastor after the martyrdom of Peter in Rome. After Linus, was Cletus, after Cletus was Clement, etc. After Peter’s matrydom in Rome, the Christian faithful elected the successor to Peter’s pastoral office from among the elders of the Church, and this successorship continued from the 1st century to this day as a Petrine office with honor and jurisdiction in the Church universal.

Many church history books claim the early successors of the church—those prior to 300 ad—can’t be verified, I’ll cite specifically at this point, Gonzales, The Story of Chrisitianity, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY; 1985.

itsjustdave1988:

Petrine Primacy is NT fact, which even Protestant bible scholars admit. What they don’t want to admit is that this Petrine Primacy continues today. For some reason, they want dismiss NT ecclesiology for a governmental construct of human invention, rejected what was established by Scripture by claiming there is no longer a chief pastor of the universal Church as there was in NT times.

Why do you criticize an ecclesiology of a governmental construct of human invention, when that’s what you, yourself, have in your church, a governmental construct of human invention?

 

[guanophore]

Why do you criticize an ecclesiology of a governmental construct of human invention, when that’s what you, yourself, have in your church, a governmental construct of human invention?

I think it is imperative that you see it that way, so that you can justify rebelling against it. But we accept the testimony of the Apostles, found both in the Scripture and in the church, that it is Jesus who builds His church, that He will remain with her until the end of the age, and that the HS will guide her into all truth. It is His “invention”.

Eph 5:25-30
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind — yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

Jesus is the one who gave Himself for His Bride, cleansed her, washed her with water and the word, so as to make her holy. It is He who nourishes and tenderly cares for her.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This may have been missed last night so I’m repeating it, because I think it perhaps can help Leeann understand the context of the phrase that worries her so much, about ‘nobody else to turn.’

If I may:

Picture yourself living in Nazareth around AD 30 --let’s say it’s during one of the three years of Jesus’ ministry.

Now, let’s imagine that you have not been listening to Jesus. Worse, you’ve been actively plotting with the Pharisess to bring Him down. Everybody in town knows it. Everybody around Jesus knows it. Jesus, of course, knows it.

Then, in the midst of all this, suddenly your heart is moved. You start to rethink things. You realize you were wrong… .you’ve been dreadfully wrong about Jesus. You are miserable. You want to beg His forgiveness, but He has gone off to pray. His disciples won’t even speak to you.

What do you do? You go to the only person in town who wouldn’t reject you–His Mother. You pour out your sorrow and repentence and you beg His Mother to intercede to Jesus for you. . .because, if she won’t help you, you have nobody else to turn to.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You have a point there….that’s evident within the Catholic Church’s own development.

I think your missing an important point, neither the NT nor any Church of Christ teaches “Sola Scriptura”…that’s a Protestant heresy. In order to be consistent, Protestantism must quote Bible passages to support their novel doctrines or it need not be believed. Authentic Christianity is not based upon such erroneous epistemology, as the doctrine of Sola Scripture itself is not found in Scripture, and is therefore self-refuting.

Tell me the chapter and verse where it says we can.

Your epistemology is severely flawed. For instance, tell me the chapter and verse which says women can “eat this bread and drink the cup**”**(1 Cor 11:26) in remembrence of the Lord’s Paschal supper. Just because there’s no explicit text approving of it doesn’t not mean that it is therefore prohibited. There’s no text which explicitly states that the Son of God is “eternally begotten of the father.” Yet, it is true nonetheless.

These are Hymns of “praise” – which is prayer – what I was referring too – is when you actually read those Psalms that you posted, you will see that David was “praising God”

Yes, the Psalms are praising God but they are also asking (requesting, praying) the angels and saints also praise God. So you agree that it is Biblical to request (pray to) the angels and saints so that they join us in praise of God?

As you read through them, you will see that they are in no way “invoking” the heavenly hosts in prayer – if they are – then they must also be “invoking” the “sun, moon, stars, dragons, waters above the earth in prayer….and that would be simply a pagan thing to do.

The Psalmist in fact does ask the sun and moon to “bless the Lord.” That you consider the Psalmist a “pagan” for doing so is astonishing. It’s clearly Biblical to ask (pray, request) any and all of God’s creation to “bless the Lord,” your opinion that this is “pagan,” notwithstanding.

They are of “praise” not of “intercession”.

So it’s OK to ask (pray, request) angels and saints to “bless the lord” with you, but it’s not OK to ask (pray, request) them to pray for you? Again, please cite the chapter and verse. On the contrary, St. Paul taught “we have not ceased to pray for you.” Why would anyone suppose that his intercessory prayer should cease once Paul and the other saints have entered heavenly glory?

We know from Scripture that they do in fact continue to pray for us. St. John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth. Angels do the same thing: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3–4).

If I could ask a Christian on earth to pray for me, there’s nothing unBiblical about asking a Christian in heaven to pray for me. We are all one body in Christ.

Most “Protestants” would likely know the difference between “praising” and “requesting”

I’m not so sure. For example, when I was attending Protestant services, we sang the hymn “Angels We Have Heard On High.” It is found in almost every Protestant hymnal I’ve seen. However, most Protestants don’t even know that within that hymn which they sing, is an intercessory prayer to Mary.

The relevant verse goes: “See Him in a manger laid / Whom the choirs of angels praise / Mary, Joseph, lend your aid / While our hearts in love we raise.” Double eeeeek!!! Prayers to Mary and Joseph in our Protestant hymnals!!!

 

[justasking4]

itsjustdave1988;4368416]
Yes, the Psalms are praising God but they are also asking (requesting, praying) the angels and saints also praise God. So you agree that it is Biblical to request (pray to) the angels and saints so that they join us in praise of God?

It is not biblical to “request (pray to) the angels and saints so that they join us in praise of God?” There are no such passages to support this.

 

[justasking4]

itsjustdave1988;4368416]
The Psalmist in fact does ask the sun and moon to “bless the Lord.” That you consider the Psalmist a “pagan” for doing so is astonishing. It’s clearly Biblical to ask (pray, request) any and all of God’s creation to “bless the Lord,” your opinion that this is “pagan,” notwithstanding.

This psalmist is using a figure of speech and is not to be taken literally since the sun and the moon are not living.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In view of the Pope saying - "we will not know to whom to turn"… my question is, if the Apostles were standing next to the Pope, to whom do you think they would be advising him to “turn” too …to Mary…or Jesus?

They would tell him to turn to Jesus.

(Unless they knew the pope, and realized that he was speaking poetically)

 

[bud02]

You pour out your sorrow and repentence and you beg His Mother to intercede to Jesus for you. . .because, if she won’t help you, you have nobody else to turn to.

Lets say that someone was on a island and only had a bible, I dont think that they would come to that conclusion about Mary. You are replacing the work of the Holy Spirit with Mary. The Church is people (temples) that have received the Lords Spirit. If as you claim the RC church (institution) is the only way to Heaven, you become just like the temple Jesus overturned the money changer tables in. The same church / priest he said, But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

The Holy Spirit intercedes.
Romans
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God

Pray in the Spirit not Mary

Jude
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Pray that Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, not Mary glorified in you
According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Mary’s grace

2 Thess
11 Therefore we also pray always for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power, 12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This one is self evident also Jesus words. pray the rosary “not”

Matt
7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Simon asks Peter to Pray to the Lord . Not Mary

Acts
24 Then Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me.”

Paul prays to God. not Mary

2 Cor
7 Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified.

Its a very simple thing to use an online bible that searches key words in the bible. Words like church, pray, spirit, Mary, intercession ect.
The bible doesn’t support your RC theology, in fact it points to Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father. As Leeann has been pointing out the gospel that the RC teach is not the same described in the bible.

When I discuss the secret rapture that is tough by many today I tell them that I would rather error on the side of safety. In other words I chose to believe that the 70th week of Danial was fulfilled from Jesus baptism, middle of the week the cross, and ended with the stoning of Stephen. I expect to go threw the tribulation and prepare for it rather than presume I will be secretly taken up and spared the hardship. I would suggest that you do the same and if you error, error on the side of safety, dont go beyond the written word.

 

[bud02]

I would also like to point out that Mary is only mention 3 times outside of the gospels.

Acts 1-14
Acts 2-12
Romans 6-16

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4365679&postcount=285

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4366440&postcount=301

 

[AshleyBelle]

I would also like to point out that Mary is only mention 3 times outside of the gospels.

Acts 1-14
Acts 2-12
Romans 6-16

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4365679&postcount=285

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4366440&postcount=301

Bud…if you want anybody to take you seriously… you need to read and find out what we believe. You need to stop telling us you know what we REALLY believe even after we try to explain to you what our beliefs are.

Seriously… the library here at CAF is a great place to start.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This psalmist is using a figure of speech and is not to be taken literally since the sun and the moon are not living.

Thanks for your fallible opinion, but your opinion about what the author meant doesn’t constitute a sound Scriptural argument.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My assertions has been that it was never taught or preached by the Apostles or by Jesus.

Neither has the Protestant claim of “Bible alone” been taught by any Apostle or Jesus. Neither has Protestant claim of “Faith alone” been taught by any Apostle or Jesus. Neither has any Church of Christ before the advent of Protestantism claimed the Bible only consisted of 66 books, and a truncated version of Daniel and Esther.

While Protestants “claim” to believe according to the “Bible alone,” it is clear that this is nothing more than a slogan.

For example, the preface to my Protestant KJV Bible recommends extra-biblical “study helps” to better understand Scripture, affirming that …

The reader will want to keep in mind as well. In no instance, however, has the emerging light from these extra-Biblical sources ever done violence to or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God. These helps only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter. (*The Open Bible, *preface, Authorized King James Version, Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1975).

I find the above admission rather revealing. Catholics have always contended that the “extra-Biblical study helps” of Catholic Tradition has “in no instance … ever done violence or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God.” But instead, Catholic tradition “only serves to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.”

It seems that when my Protestant friends and family use “study helps” from “extra-Biblical sources” they “only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.” Yet, when I say the same thing of the “extra-Biblical source” of Catholic tradition, they charge me with following “traditions of men” instead of the “Bible alone.” I don’t find such a rebuttal at all convincing, however, as I see the inconsistency behind their charge.

The fact is, they don’t actually use the “Bible alone” as they often assert, but also use the relatively new “traditions” or the “extra-Biblical study helps” that they choose, novel as they are, whereas I use the ancient tradition or “extra-Biblical helps” that have been handed on by our common Christian forefathers from the earliest centuries of Christianity. I find these more compelling and believe they more convincingly describe the intent of the entire deposit of Faith, both oral or written, “traditioned” to us from the apostles.

It is Biblical to ask our fellow Christians to pray for us. The angles and saints in heaven continue to be Christians. This is the teaching of historic Christianity, and only some Protestants are in dispute with other Protestants on this point…which is not surprising, as Protestants have historically disputed with other Protestants about all sorts of doctrinal points.

 

[justasking4]

Thanks for your fallible opinion, but your opinion about what the author meant doesn’t constitute a sound Scriptural argument.

Where has the Catholic church infallibly interpret this verse?

 

[bud02]

Bud…if you want anybody to take you seriously… you need to read and find out what we believe. You need to stop telling us you know what we REALLY believe even after we try to explain to you what our beliefs are.

Seriously… the library here at CAF is a great place to start.

That is what I have been doing reading and listening to your claims.
Then I compare them with the bible. My rather long post above is just that comparing scripture with her statement about Mary. Her statements are not supported by the bible. I am sorry you dont agree with my method. I see the RC faith going beyond even (contradicting) what is written, What you teach is not found in the bible but rather your traditions. Why is it that the spirit inspired tradition of Mary contradicts the Spirit of the bible? Why do you chose to disregard the bible to follow tradition? It is because you think that you have received salvation from Peter by the secession of Popes and the euchres. That’s the very same thing the Jews believed, they believing they were decedents of Abraham that they shared in the promise. If you read the gospels Jesus had a different opinion. Just as many that are born of the Spirit today dont agree with you. Nothing new under the sun, as Solomon would say.

 

[BSHoop96]

This may have been missed last night so I’m repeating it, because I think it perhaps can help Leeann understand the context of the phrase that worries her so much, about ‘nobody else to turn.’

If I may:

Picture yourself living in Nazareth around AD 30 --let’s say it’s during one of the three years of Jesus’ ministry.

Now, let’s imagine that you have not been listening to Jesus. Worse, you’ve been actively plotting with the Pharisess to bring Him down. Everybody in town knows it. Everybody around Jesus knows it. Jesus, of course, knows it.

Then, in the midst of all this, suddenly your heart is moved. You start to rethink things. You realize you were wrong… .you’ve been dreadfully wrong about Jesus. You are miserable. You want to beg His forgiveness, but He has gone off to pray. His disciples won’t even speak to you.

What do you do? You go to the only person in town who wouldn’t reject you–His Mother. You pour out your sorrow and repentence and you beg His Mother to intercede to Jesus for you. . .because, if she won’t help you, you have nobody else to turn to.

Maybe this wasn’t fair to the OP but I saw this was “another” poster who doesn’t understand the Catholic Church and so does not understand the Church and Mary. I usually just say “everything/everyone points to Christ” and leave it at that because usually they will argue any point. But in skimming I saw this and I LIKE IT!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There’s no more sacerdotal system; read Hebrews.

I disagree. Hebrews doesn’t do away with all priesthood. We have a priesthood of all believers (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 5:10). We have a high priest in Jesus Christ. We also continue to have a ministerial priesthood comprised of bishops (episcopoi), priests (presbuteroi). The English word “priest” derives from the Greek NT word presbuteros. For example, James 5:14 makes clear that the priests (presbuteroi) have a distinct role separate from the priesthood of all believers, exhorting those who are among the “priesthood of all believers” to go get the ministeral priest (presbyter), in order that the presbyter pray and annoint the sick person so that they may be healed and forgiven of sins.

James 5:14-15 - “Is any sick among you? let him call for the presbyteros (priests) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

If there was no distinct presbyteros to call upon, then the above passage makes no sense. If there was no ministerial priesthood, then any of the “priesthood of all believers” should have been able to anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord, pray, and save the sick and have their sins forgiven. Clearly James understood that there was indeed a ministerial priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers, with a unique role in the life of the Church.

Many church history books claim the early successors of the church—those prior to 300 ad—can’t be verified…

J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant church historian, traces the papacy from Benedict XVI to Peter. In his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.”

St. Irenaeus (AD 189) wrote:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome] on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. …To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. **Alexander **followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Peter was the chief pastor of the flock, not by human invention, but by commission of the Savior. The first century Christians, those who learned Christianity directly from the apostles themselves, continued this office because this was the NT-established construct. They were charged by the apostles to continue their ministry, so they did so in electing successors to Peter, in accordance with apostolic tradition.

You might not like the evidence of history, but it is more compelling than the novel interpretations which date no earlier than the 16th century.

 

[bud02]

Heres some numbers for the catholic church USA
cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm

In the Nation founded under God, it looks as though Cyrus has the river diverted and the waters under the gates of Babylon are drying up.

Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.

Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Where has the Catholic church infallibly interpret this verse?

The intent of the Sacred Author was not that Holy Writ should be taught in bits and pieces as you imply. The Bible should be understood as a whole, in the context of all the other passages of Sacred Scripture, and also in the context of the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) of Christ’s Church. Thus, any “official commentary” on the deposit of faith should present what Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach as a whole. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is that kind of commentary. You can read it online here: Catechism of the Catholic Church.

That the Psalmist really is asking (praying, requesting) all of God’s creation to “bless the Lord” is clear from the words he wrote. Nobody need pretend otherwise for polemical purposes. He was not pagan in asking the angels, saints, the moon, the stars, and all of God’s creation to bless the Lord. To conclude otherwise is simply unBiblical. It is also unBiblical to conclude that today, it is wrong for Christians to request angels and saints to pray for them.

The Bible supports asking other Christians to pray for them. There is no exception for Christians in heaven, despite the desperate attempts to state otherwise. This fact seems to be unanswered by any verse from those who wish it were not so. Which is probably why many so-called “Bible alone” Christians who are not Catholic also ask angels and saints in heaven to pray for them. If you can’t convince your fellow “Bible alone” Christians then why do you think you have a solid argument against this pious Christian practice?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Bud…

You say you are “listening” to our explanations…but you are only reading what you want to read. You’re looking for something that sounds “off” to you, and then you’re pulling scripture out of context to prove your point.

You can take any passage you want and try to tell us LOOK! Your church is WRONG! But the fact remains nobody here is going to take your interpretations seriously unless you can give us a reason to take your word over the church founded by CHRIST HIMSELF.

Before you toss any more blind offenses our direction, perhaps stop to consider whom you are hurling your arrows upon. For the Catholic Church is the body of Christ Himself.

 

[bud02]

The Bible supports asking other Christians to pray for them. There is no exception for Christians in heaven, despite the desperate attempts to state otherwise. This fact seems to be unanswered by any verse from those who wish it were not so. Which is probably why many so-called “Bible alone” Christians who are not Catholic also ask angels and saints in heaven to pray for them. If you can’t convince your fellow “Bible alone” Christians then why do you think you have a solid argument against this pious Christian practice?

I’ll give you a bit of a refresher (indulgence)
The Catholic church gave up collecting money from people for their dead family members (to pay for their unrepeated sins), but still keep the praying to the dead part.

An indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution. The belief is that indulgences draw on the storehouse of merit acquired by Jesus’ sacrifice and the virtues and penances of the saints. They are granted for specific good works and prayers.

Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early church, or, to express it more exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.

Indulgences, and the abuses that crept into granting them, were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).

FROM
2 Maccabees
Chapter 12-42
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.