Protestant Guilt?

[Roy5]

True, many Methodists and Baptists drink, just as many (most) married Catholics use artificial birth control. But the Methodist and Baptist traditions have been opposed to drink. The ‘General Rules’ of the Methodists, for example, specifically forbid drinking alcohol. Until fairly recent times Methodists seeking ordination also had to promise not to smoke.

 The Amish, of course, are part of the larger Mennonite movement. The Mennonites - German pietists in origin - have split into a number of groups, everything from the Mennonite Brethren and the Hutterian Brethren to the Old Order Amish and Mennonite Church of God in Christ. Some sects are stricter than others. Some have churches and some don't. Etc. I attended college in PA, had a roommate from New Holland, and enjoyed visiting Amish Country as well as Gettysburg, where a couple of my maternal ancestors fought. 

 Keep happy and healthy. God bless everybody, of every creed, color, culture and country.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve gathered by participating on this Forum that Catholicism is quite demanding. It reminds me of Orthodox Judaism in this respect. Thanks for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

This is humurous…I just finished a book…

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney

In this book they cite the actions of people that leave the order of religion of various kinds and soon find themselves looking for other rules to follow and live by…it reminds me of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy…all randomness temds to come to order…it is the drive of the human experience, in Judaism, Catholicism and anywhere you choose…

 

[meltzerboy]

Protestantism is so diversified that this question is hard to answer.

Among evangelical Protestants, there can be ‘guilt’. This, however, is mitigated by simple faith. Luther became disillusioned with what he called the Catholic emphasis on works. The system of indulgences was especially offensive. At that time, of course. St. Peter’s in Rome was being built, and Tetzel was traveling around, promising that deceased relatives could get out of purgatory faster if their kinfolk gave generously, etc. But Luther came to believe the major focus on works - pray this and get that, say so many rosarys and obtain this, confess your sins and become absolved, etc.- this mechanical way of winnin salvation was wrong.

One day, as most readers know, his eureka moment came when he focused on that verse in Romans where Paul states clearly that we are justified by simple faith in Christ, that sacraments play a positive role in that may lead us to faith but that they by themselves are no more than empty gestures unless they are accompanied by faith. Initially Lutheranism and the Reformation was built around this central affirmation.

 Today some of this remains a key concept within Protestantism, which is why so many Protestants give less attention to the sacraments - 'works' as opposed to faith. True religion, they would argue, is in the heart - love of God - and not in attending worship or adoration of the Eucharist or reciting the Rosary. These, some would argue, become mechanical acts, like Tibetan Biddhists spinning prayer wheels. God is not moved by the number of pious rituals we go through. God is moved by our deep dedication to him and to his earthy children. Hence, those last verses of Matt. 25 and the Parable of the GVood Samaritan.

 Protestant guilt exists mainly among 'holiness' Protestants, those who are taught that it's a sin to take a drink or to dance, or maybe to play cards or attend a movie on the Sabbath. When they fail to live up to such a strict code of behavior many feel guilty while others find a church home somewhere else. On the other hand, one has to admire those who live under such restrictions - e. g., the Amish, one of my favorite groups. If all the world were Amish we'd be much better off. Still and again, I am not about to give up my car, TV set or computer.   

  Most mainline Protestants are theological liberals and likely suffer from less guilt. Even among them, however, ethical standards are high and failing to live up to them can have an impact. They may consult their pastor, or see a psychiatrist.

Roy, the same charge that Luther made against Catholicism has been leveled against Judaism, namely that it is a religion of works, not faith. This may have started with Jesus Himself and his reaction to the Pharisees. Judaism is in fact more a “works” religion than Protestantism and perhaps even Catholicism. The reasoning is, for example, that one can love G-d and one’s neighbor in the abstract and have great faith; but that faith, if not demonstrated by tangible social action, does not always transform into charity. Of course, one should not merely help others with the intention of boasting or showing off one’s generosity, or in order to expect others to reciprocate one day, or for the explicit purpose of earning or meriting salvation. The aid you provide should be given based on compassion and kindness, and not with the goal of seeking something in return. But, according to Jewish teaching, even selfish assistance is better than none at all. Nonetheless, the practice of all the commandments (mitzvot) should be done joyfully, with faith and charity, rather than being motivated by either the fear of punishment or the desire for reward. This is a tall task for Jews and all people to accomplish, since we tend to be self-serving in various ways. Add to this the incentive of salvation, particularly dominant in Christianity, and the fear factor may become intensified. It seems to me that whether one gains salvation through faith or works, there is at least a trace of self-absorption involved just by thinking so much about being saved. The “works” aspect of both Judaism and Catholicism, at its purest level, should be performed, I believe, without focusing so much on oneself, but rather centering on G-d’s Will and the lives of others. According to my perspective, this is the true nature of faith and charity.

 

[meltzerboy]

This is humurous…I just finished a book…

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney

In this book they cite the actions of people that leave the order of religion of various kinds and soon find themselves looking for other rules to follow and live by…it reminds me of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy…all randomness temds to come to order…it is the drive of the human experience, in Judaism, Catholicism and anywhere you choose…

CopticChristian, psychologists talk about the motivational need we humans have for order and consistency. Very few of us can tolerate randomness and disorder (although some of us can tolerate ambiguity), and we–including scientists–tend to search for order in the randomness, and usually find it. Neutral perception of life and the universe does not exist; everything we perceive is filtered through our interpretation, whether or not that interpretation is (divinely) inspired. This can serve as an argument for both theists and atheists.

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ

 Don't want to get further into Luther details. The views and 'facts' are so different, so perhaps it's a case of Protestants and Catholics 'agreeing to disagree'. No great harm in that.

 I was surprised that you don't know that many Protestant traditions have condemned the drinking of alcohol, including the two largest Protestant groups in the USA - the Baptists and Methodists. How else do you think Prohibition was added to the Constitution nearly 100 years ago? Go to most Protestant churches and you will find that they have grapejuice and not wine for communion. I know this personally because the 'Protestant wing' of my family never permitted alcohol in their homes.

Keep smiling.

Roy the words you are using are different then mine. Nor are they what I was responding to. I stated that they did not believe drinking was a sin; but, that it lead to sin. They do condemn it. It is not a sin within itself. I was a Baptist and understand this point very well.

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ

 Don't want to get further into Luther details. The views and 'facts' are so different, so perhaps it's a case of Protestants and Catholics 'agreeing to disagree'. No great harm in that.

 I was surprised that you don't know that many Protestant traditions have condemned the drinking of alcohol, including the two largest Protestant groups in the USA - the Baptists and Methodists. How else do you think Prohibition was added to the Constitution nearly 100 years ago? Go to most Protestant churches and you will find that they have grapejuice and not wine for communion. I know this personally because the 'Protestant wing' of my family never permitted alcohol in their homes.

Keep smiling.

Roy, that is nice to believe; but, is not true. Facts are facts and I have no problem laying out the failures of Popes and they are many. The issue I have is Protestant do not learn or even try to understand the faith they follow. If you wish to pick on Pope Leo X sins I will give them to you here. They are facts and we can not dispute them. Just as you should not dismiss Luthers sins. Especially since he clearly writes about them and supports these sinful acts.

Pope Leo X was from the Medici family and they were a very powerful merchant family. France, Spain and England were continually at war. Italy and the Medici family was geographically at the center of these wars and would at times be kicked out of their home land. Pope Leo X was bought a Cardinal cap at a very young age. This was one of the areas people felt the Catholic faith was amiss. With that said he was a very good Christian prior to becoming pope. Prayed regularly and fasted twice a week. When Julius, the preceding Pope, that was from humble birth died, the Cardinals were looking for someone that was less stringent. The monarchies also did not wish to follow the faith for a host of reason. Most of them were selfish reasons. Individually they wanted to conquer land or take the Church donations for themselves. N

Now when Pope Leo X became Pope he changed. He was not strict as everyone wanted; but, he went to excess. He spent money lavishly and ran the Church into bankruptcy. Most of this was spent on parties (no prostitues or anything liked that were involved) and hunts. As Pope Leo X was very ill he was often carted up to penned in animals that he could kill. The worst crime I have been able to find of his was during one of the hunts a man was boared to death. The Pope stated after the hunt was over that the hunt was glorious. Clearly showing he was aloof and not grounded in his faith.

Now the Protestant Reformation was driven by the creation of the printing press, the greed of the monarchies, the lust of the monarchies, the approaching of the Muslim, and a major movement of humanist. The Church was corrupt at times and at times was very pious. I believe most would state the Pope prior to Leo X was very good Pope in most respects. The world was very chaotic and many thought the end of the world was near. (If you read history you will know that this happens alot.) France wanted to take back Italy that they controlled for a while. Spain was the most pwerful country at the time. The Medici family looked to military power from Spain. Because they did not want the Muslims overtaking Italy. Nor did they want the French to take Italy. In either case this powerful family would have lost all of their income. Note also the stakes were more then about money. In all likelyhood they would have been killed like their father was. When the Pope accepted the overture of Spain, France attacked. Of course Enlgand helped the Pope until Henry the VIII decided he wanted to have another divorce and pick a new wife. I believe it would have been his third at this time. The Pope said no so England started their own Church and revolted against the Pope. While the major powers were all fighting and the Pope was in the middle. The German’s had many small little fifedoms. The Germans wanted to start their own Church to gain wealth so they could become a powerful country. Or course you had the Muslims conquering all of the middle east and large chunks of Europe. The printing press did more then publish Luther’s phamplets. They published new theories from humanist. This made the landscape for change. The Pope was focused upon fun, all the major powers wanted to conquer Italy, Muslims wanted to conquer Italy, their was revolution in humanist beliefs and the renaissance was becoming a force because of the funding from the Church.

Indulgences were actually being raised by many Pope’s for St Peters. The Church built by Constantine was in severe disrepair and was dangerous. Many popes had tried to repair it. Pope Leo X though stated that it would be finished. Stepped up the selling of indulgences to raise money to build St Peters Church. What is interesting is people try and cut religion out of culture. This project brought us the great golden age of art and many believe was the first step in pulling us out of the middle ages. Pope Leo X had Rapheal, Da Vinci, Michangelo to name just a few all working on artistic projects. Was it a waste of money? To Protestants they believe it was if you discuss religion. To artist it was one of the great moments in history that art was truly supported.

I have fully divulged all that I know about Pope Leo X. If you wish to know more about his family tell me. To believe that Luther and corruption of the Church was the reason for the Reformation would be naive. Please read about the atrocities of Luther and Calvin and then read about Pope Leo X. Find out what the faiths are truly based upon. It is a diservice to any faith to not read history written by historians.

 

[Roy5]

I have read tons of history written by historians. They tend to write history from their perspective. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, for example, tells the story from a Protestant viewpoint. Have you read it? My family was of mixed religious heritage, Catholic and Protestant,. and the old folks on the Protestant side were big on that volume plus Pilgrim’s Progress and the writings of John Milton.

Recently I finished Absolute Monarchs by Norwich, which is a fairly objective survey of the Popes. Its author is a celebrated historian.

There is this tendency here on CAF to assume that when someone disagrees with a traditional point of view that that person is ill-informed. This is often true, but often false. History, like religion and politics, is a field crowded with 'spinners' - those who have an agenda. It is quite possible that several people can be very well informed and yet disagree. It's not simply a question of providing 'the facts' and every sane person will fall in line. Very erudite people may have very different understandings. That's the way of the world.

 My problem (over the years) has become that I tend to believe that no mortals have a very clear insight into ultimate truth. We live on this tiny speck of land in a universe of perhaps several million solar systems. I don't know what's going on across the street as I gaze out my window. How can I pretend to understand this mammoth, magnificant, miraculous and mysterious world? This leads me to awe and to humility rather than arrogance and certainty. Too often religion preaches humility, peace and love while it promotes hubris, tension and prejudice.

  God bless everybody - and save us from the idea that 'my church'  or any church is the only institution in the world that has been blessed with infallible truth. "Now we see through a glass darkly...."    "We walk by faith and not by sight."  My faith is in God and not in any organization or any book.

 

[nickybr38]

I have read tons of history written by historians. They tend to write history from their perspective. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, for example, tells the story from a Protestant viewpoint. Have you read it? My family was of mixed religious heritage, Catholic and Protestant,. and the old folks on the Protestant side were big on that volume plus Pilgrim’s Progress and the writings of John Milton.

Recently I finished Absolute Monarchs by Norwich, which is a fairly objective survey of the Popes. Its author is a celebrated historian.

There is this tendency here on CAF to assume that when someone disagrees with a traditional point of view that that person is ill-informed. This is often true, but often false. History, like religion and politics, is a field crowded with 'spinners' - those who have an agenda. It is quite possible that several people can be very well informed and yet disagree. It's not simply a question of providing 'the facts' and every sane person will fall in line. Very erudite people may have very different understandings. That's the way of the world.

 My problem (over the years) has become that I tend to believe that no mortals have a very clear insight into ultimate truth. We live on this tiny speck of land in a universe of perhaps several million solar systems. I don't know what's going on across the street as I gaze out my window. How can I pretend to understand this mammoth, magnificant, miraculous and mysterious world? This leads me to awe and to humility rather than arrogance and certainty. Too often religion preaches humility, peace and love while it promotes hubris, tension and prejudice.

  God bless everybody - and save us from the idea that 'my church'  or any church is the only institution in the world that has been blessed with infallible truth. "Now we see through a glass darkly...."    "We walk by faith and not by sight."  My faith is in God and not in any organization or any book.

Bless you Roy… but I was surprised to see you write that your faith is in God and not in any book… what about the Bible? Where do we learn about God? Who can we trust?

I think only one Church has been gifted with the fullness of truth but I do not deny that other churches may have grains of truth… I think the division and confusion you see amongst many Protestant churches speaks more truth then anything any individual Protestant might say.

But I try very hard not to look at the individual and look at what the individual’s church actually teaches. I do not see each man as worthy of interpreting Scripture. I do not see every man as a Prophet. I do not see every man as being wise. I just don’t. Because of this I have to trust something greater then man.

I cannot trust new churches. Churches that sprang up a thousand year or more after Christ’s death. I just can’t.

I can trust organizations that formed closely after His death. Especially because they continue to teach the same things they taught then. That, to me, screams truth.

But that’s just my opinion.

But we’ve digressed a great deal from the original topic.

 

[PerryJ]

I have read tons of history written by historians. They tend to write history from their perspective. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, for example, tells the story from a Protestant viewpoint. Have you read it? My family was of mixed religious heritage, Catholic and Protestant,. and the old folks on the Protestant side were big on that volume plus Pilgrim’s Progress and the writings of John Milton.

Recently I finished Absolute Monarchs by Norwich, which is a fairly objective survey of the Popes. Its author is a celebrated historian.

There is this tendency here on CAF to assume that when someone disagrees with a traditional point of view that that person is ill-informed. This is often true, but often false. History, like religion and politics, is a field crowded with 'spinners' - those who have an agenda. It is quite possible that several people can be very well informed and yet disagree. It's not simply a question of providing 'the facts' and every sane person will fall in line. Very erudite people may have very different understandings. That's the way of the world.

 My problem (over the years) has become that I tend to believe that no mortals have a very clear insight into ultimate truth. We live on this tiny speck of land in a universe of perhaps several million solar systems. I don't know what's going on across the street as I gaze out my window. How can I pretend to understand this mammoth, magnificant, miraculous and mysterious world? This leads me to awe and to humility rather than arrogance and certainty. Too often religion preaches humility, peace and love while it promotes hubris, tension and prejudice.

  God bless everybody - and save us from the idea that 'my church'  or any church is the only institution in the world that has been blessed with infallible truth. "Now we see through a glass darkly...."    "We walk by faith and not by sight."  My faith is in God and not in any organization or any book.

Roy,

I struggle with your statement. Some things are facts and some are not. Luther supporting the murder of 400,000 can not be questioned. It is written in his very own handwriting.

One can state Pope Leo X was a good or bad Pope based upon their beliefs etc. That is up to the writer and the reader to decide. Personally I believe he failed. I do understand the complexity of the times; yet, he still failed.

The statement to remove the sins committed during the reformation, by stating that history is in the eye of the beholder, is a stretch. Much of your post appears to be a red herring. (I do not mean this negatively.) Mixed family statement is an attempt to show that you are not partial. People often are very well informed and have differing view points. With that said facts do not change. Luther supported the murder of 400,000 of his supporters. One may question his motives. One may even believe he was right to do it. That is a person’s choice. The fact is that he supported the murder of 400,000 people. Perhaps if you believe that he was justified in this murder then that would be a response. I could agree with it or not. To believe that facts do not exist because of a historical spin is a bit much. I quit posting in the past because Protestants often protest sins that Pope’s have committed. Many times they are 100 percent correct. Popes fail as we are all fallen. I have not found one Protestant that will admit Luther’s well publicized sins. It is as if their myth bubble burst their faith fails.

Of course no one has insight into the ultimate truth. If we did then we would be God and not men.

The Catholic faith has the truth and that can be proven via the Bible, history and artifacts. That does not mean others do not have a place in heaven or that Baptists can not be greater then Catholics. This would be for another thread though.

 

[Roy5]

** Just so you’re aware, I am not a defender of Luther**. He made serious errors, as did the Papacy during that era, I don’t know a church named St. Luther or St. Calvin. What these two Catholic men did (remember, both were baptized as Catholics) was to call for reform. They objected to certain excesses and corruption within the church.

** I do like what they did, however.** Both Luther and Calvin paved the way for a greater freedom of religion. There were various inquisitions - three, I think it correct to say - one mainly against the Cathars, another in Spain that especially targeted Jews, the third focusing upon Protestants. Fortunately the Protestant movement made enough headway to eventually lead to religious diversity and religious freedom. Here in the US, for example, 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were ‘heretics’ - Protestants of various kinds. It was only in relatively modern times that Catholicism begin to worry about freedom of religion, now that it is often under fire in Muslim lands and elsewhere. As late as 1864 Pius IX was issuing his attack on democracy and religious freedom in his ‘Syllabus of Errors’, It was not until Vatican II that Protestants became separated brothers and sisters, thanks to that great man, John XXIII. More recently the Vatican has even recognized worthy things about Luther and the faithful sing his “Mighty Fortress” at Mass, widely known as the anthem of the Reformation! Important steps forward, but various Catholics fight such genuine ecumenical progress every step of the way.

** The early history of the Church was a mishmash of conflict**. Amid persecution, all sorts of sects emerged, one ‘heresy’ after another. The list is long. I have some sympathy with Nestorianism myself, because the idea that Mary is the mother of God troubles me. How can a human mother give birth to her divine and eternal Creator? Mother of Jesus - of course - and that is enough to be ‘blessed among women’. Sadly, when Catholicism declares a dogma then it cannot be reconsidered. It becomes truth and all who dissent are wrong - pure and simple. But it isn’t that pure and simple.
I have to get to other concerns. I love the Christian Church, but am distressed that one section considers itself the one and only vessel of truth. Rather like the Indian fable of the elephant and the blind men. Different people 'see' things differently. Fine. Give them that freedom, but work together in concord and mutual respect and not while chanting loudly: "We are the one and only holy apostolic church." Catholics often don't realize how arrogant and offensive that can sound to other Christians.

 

[nickybr38]

Catholics often don’t realize how arrogant and offensive that can sound to other Christians.

I actually do know how that sounds to other Christians because I haven’t always been Catholic and I used to balk when people would say this.

Catholics do not say that other religions do not contain truth. We simply say that we are the Church that Christ left the fullness of truth with.

And I understand this can be very offensive to those on the outside but it is truth and I would be lying if I said anything other then this. I hope you can understand.

 

[PerryJ]

** Just so you’re aware, I am not a defender of Luther**. He made serious errors, as did the Papacy during that era, I don’t know a church named St. Luther or St. Calvin. What these two Catholic men did (remember, both were baptized as Catholics) was to call for reform. They objected to certain excesses and corruption within the church.

** I do like what they did, however.** Both Luther and Calvin paved the way for a greater freedom of religion. There were various inquisitions - three, I think it correct to say - one mainly against the Cathars, another in Spain that especially targeted Jews, the third focusing upon Protestants. Fortunately the Protestant movement made enough headway to eventually lead to religious diversity and religious freedom. Here in the US, for example, 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were ‘heretics’ - Protestants of various kinds. It was only in relatively modern times that Catholicism begin to worry about freedom of religion, now that it is often under fire in Muslim lands and elsewhere. As late as 1864 Pius IX was issuing his attack on democracy and religious freedom in his ‘Syllabus of Errors’, It was not until Vatican II that Protestants became separated brothers and sisters, thanks to that great man, John XXIII. More recently the Vatican has even recognized worthy things about Luther and the faithful sing his “Mighty Fortress” at Mass, widely known as the anthem of the Reformation! Important steps forward, but various Catholics fight such genuine ecumenical progress every step of the way.

** The early history of the Church was a mishmash of conflict**. Amid persecution, all sorts of sects emerged, one ‘heresy’ after another. The list is long. I have some sympathy with Nestorianism myself, because the idea that Mary is the mother of God troubles me. How can a human mother give birth to her divine and eternal Creator? Mother of Jesus - of course - and that is enough to be ‘blessed among women’. Sadly, when Catholicism declares a dogma then it cannot be reconsidered. It becomes truth and all who dissent are wrong - pure and simple. But it isn’t that pure and simple.

I have to get to other concerns. I love the Christian Church, but am distressed that one section considers itself the one and only vessel of truth. Rather like the Indian fable of the elephant and the blind men. Different people 'see' things differently. Fine. Give them that freedom, but work together in concord and mutual respect and not while chanting loudly: "We are the one and only holy apostolic church." Catholics often don't realize how arrogant and offensive that can sound to other Christians.

Christ sounded arrogant to the Pharisees. It didnt make him wrong did it?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

 Today some of this remains a key concept within Protestantism, which is why so many Protestants give less attention to the sacraments - 'works' as opposed to faith. True religion, they would argue, is in the heart - love of God - and not in attending worship or adoration of the Eucharist or reciting the Rosary. These, some would argue, become mechanical acts, like Tibetan Biddhists spinning prayer wheels. God is not moved by the number of pious rituals we go through. God is moved by our deep dedication to him and to his earthy children. Hence, those last verses of Matt. 25 and the Parable of the GVood Samaritan.

Just wanted to address this paragraph, because it seems to be a key misunderstanding among many Protestants. The sacraments are not “works” that we do to get to heaven. They are works of God, channels of His grace. In other words, they are not something that we do for God but something that He does for us.

And as for the other things that you mentioned, such as Eucharistic adoration or the rosary, these are not “empty rituals” but a means of drawing closer to God (provided that a person’s heart is in teh right place.

 

[Roy5]

EnglishTeacher

  Hm! I recall my old black missal - Latin on the left page, English on the right, with lay responses in bright red. Below many of the prayers, in small print and in parentheses (as I remember), would be printed such notations as 'indulgence, 5 days' or 'indulgence, 10 days'. The indication clearly was that you would merit that many 'points' (less days in purgatory) if you prayed that particular prayer, or that you could use the points on behalf of loved ones in purgatory. Clearly, these prayers were seen as 'good works', winning such favor from God by praying them. 

 You may have a different interpretation. I hope so. But I was taught that winning indulgences in such fashion was fundamental to the faith. If they are used to draw us closer to God, fine. I learned as a child, however, that these were important vehicles for spending less time in purgatory before entering heaven. I believe the Pope today still announces certain indulgences in return for certain acts of devotion, not unlike what I understood as a child. 

  As I have mentioned from time to time. I was raised with a mixed heritage - Catholic and Protestant. I have drifted away from both traditional Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism into a position that seeks to respect all faiths that honor God and seek to help fellow humans. The notion that specific doctrines or a specific church affiliation are right and all other religions are inferior to one degree or another is at the root of so much bigotry, bitterness, arrogance and even killing and wars through the centuries. It must have caused (and still causes) Christ much grief when his emphasis was on loving one another as he loved us. 

 My personal faith is in our magnificent and mysterious Creator, in the Lord's presence, in his call to us to serve him through working to make this world a more loving community of people of all colors, creeds, cultures and countries. Religion too often works in quite the opposite direction. Fortunately, most Catholics and Protestants I know no longer give credence to the foolish prejudices of past areas. A main problem today seems to be that faction within Islam (Muslim extremists) who reflect the narrowness that once characterized Christianity, Let's pray that they, too, may learn to dwell in mutual respect and peace."Think and let think" should become the motto we all live by.

 

[PerryJ]

EnglishTeacher

  Hm! I recall my old black missal - Latin on the left page, English on the right, with lay responses in bright red. Below many of the prayers, in small print and in parentheses (as I remember), would be printed such notations as 'indulgence, 5 days' or 'indulgence, 10 days'. The indication clearly was that you would merit that many 'points' (less days in purgatory) if you prayed that particular prayer, or that you could use the points on behalf of loved ones in purgatory. Clearly, these prayers were seen as 'good works', winning such favor from God by praying them

Lets clarify the statement above. Indulgences are for temporal punishments. The days listed only apply to temporal punishments that would occur on Earth. If the temporal punishment was in Purgatory the days do not apply.

 

[Roy5]

I guess I must have misunderstood. When you say ‘punishments on earth’ what are you talking about. Obviously, Tetzel was ‘selling indulgences’ for loved ones in heaven, which was the spark that ignited the Reformation.

Do you mean that problems we have in life are God's punishment for our sins here? Hm! That opens up a whole can of worms - like the horrendous sufferings of many of the saints. It seems to me that Job dealt with that issue. I find it hard to believe that those who suffer most have sinned the most. I know and have known some very saintly people, those who recite the Rosary regularly etc., who have gone through years of pain, and some shysters who have prospered. As I recall a couple Psalms deal with this.

As it was explained to me many years ago (I am a senior citizen now) indulgences were connected to a reduction of time to be spent in purgatory. Of course, in those days we also were taught about Limbo, which seems to have been tossed aside now. Perhaps interpretations have changed??? Maybe I'm behind the times.

 

[PerryJ]

EnglishTeacher

You may have a different interpretation. I hope so. But I was taught that winning indulgences in such fashion was fundamental to the faith. If they are used to draw us closer to God, fine. I learned as a child, however, that these were important vehicles for spending less time in purgatory before entering heaven. I believe the Pope today still announces certain indulgences in return for certain acts of devotion, not unlike what I understood as a child.

To review this paragrah they are not necessarily to reduce time in purgatory. This is important in the sense that the Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. Often times when people state I do not believe this or that it leaves their faith with unresolved questions. For example if we have a “Just” God and someone lives a wonderful life without any “major” sins and another person commits murder time and again; but, truly repents at the last minute the second person would have temporal punishiment follow him to purgatory. If this person lived longer they would experience temporal punishments on this Earth. Without this one person would not have been treated justly or equally. You can post a whole bunch of parsed Bible statements to refute this thought; however, when the Bible is taken as a whole it is very clear. There are also very straigth forward verses to support this in our faith.

Temporal punishment is the result on one bringing evil into the world via your sins. God may forgive you of the sin; however, that does not alleviate the the temporal effect from your act. An indulgence is God relieving the temporal punishment from your act. As such one can incur this punishment in this world or in purgatory.

This is one of the key points in confessing to a priest. One is forgiven by God; however, the temporal ramifications from your sin will create evil in this world. One has to tell his fellow man his sins as he has brought evil into this world. The forgiveness is from God though.

 

[PerryJ]

I guess I must have misunderstood. When you say ‘punishments on earth’ what are you talking about. Obviously, Tetzel was ‘selling indulgences’ for loved ones in heaven, which was the spark that ignited the Reformation.

Arguably indulgences were not what caused the Reformation. Luther refuted Thomas Aquinas’ principle in support of the Humanist point of view. As you will recall this thought was based upon Plato. Thomas Aquinas based his thoughts on Aristotle.

Humanist changed the world’s view of life and this included many people’s faith. Specifically they changed the faith from God centrist to man centrist. All measurements by man world would be based upon mans thoughts and experiences. Specifically for Luther, the thought was that God was not the measuring stick. Man would be judged upon by his own measuring stick with regards to sin. As such all sins were forgiven if one chose to accept Christ. You may reject this thought; however, you will find that the Reformation was based upon the Humanist thougth process; which, Luther and Calvin believed in.

As I have posted many times Luther supported much worse actions then an indulgence to build St Peters. Specifically his support of the German Monarch Frederick selling the reduction of purgatorial time based upon visting and paying to see relics. Notably indulgences can only apply for past sins that have been forgiven. Frederick was selling a reduction of purgatory without regards to the original sin or if it had been forgiven.

Your use of “sell” is hardly correct. For an indulgence to reduce temporal punishment one must perform a selfless act. This selfless act has to pertain to a sin forgiven by God and as such the temporal or wordly punishment was removed by God. The indulgences you refer to were to raise money to build St Peters. The current church created by Constantine was in a state that it needed severe repairs. They were not selling indulgences to puchase prositutes.

Your thoughts about temporal punishments are also incorrect. They are not punishments from God. They are punishments created when man sins and brings evil into the world. The evil or punishment is a creation of man.

It is likely that your Priest did incorrectly teach you about indulgences as it is still misunderstood by many.

 

[PerryJ]

I As it was explained to me many years ago (I am a senior citizen now) indulgences were connected to a reduction of time to be spent in purgatory. Of course, in those days we also were taught about Limbo, which seems to have been tossed aside now. Perhaps interpretations have changed??? Maybe I’m behind the times.

Limbo has not been tossed out as you say. It is not truly definable by our knowledge as such it is not mentioned much. The Catholic Church does not change its mind.

 

[PerryJ]

Let me clarify as I believe I may have made a mistatement. God does not create evil. God can and does punish. For example Moses not being allowed in the promise land. I hope I did not misdirect too much.