Question about Indulgences

[PopeMobile]

I think I have a handle on what Indulgences are, how they apply, how they are received, requirements, etc… but there is one point that I just need a little clarification on to aid in my overall understanding.

When it is said that the 1967 bull Indulgentiarum Doctrina abolished the number of days, weeks, etc… does that mean that the indulgences prior to 1967 which gave a specific number of days for fulfilling the requirements are no longer recognized?

In other words what I’m trying to find out is … was it the number of days a person would receive that was abolished (such as “do this act and you will receive 300 days indulgence”)? Or was it the number of days of requirements that were abolished (such as “do this act everyday for one month”)?

 

[Nita]

It’s important to understand just what the number of days/years referred to. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on Indulgences:
To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
So, the elimination of days/years etc., just means that we no longer relate the benefits we receive from the indulgenced act/prayer to the benefits that would have been received by so many days or years of “the ancient canonical penance”.

Now, I’m not even sure what is meant by the “ancient canonical penance”.
(I’ll have to see if I can find out; my curiosity is peaked. )
But, to give an example: Say there was a prayer that carried an indulgence of 300 days. That meant if you said that prayer, you would receive spiritual benefits about the equivalent to those received by performing the canonical penance for 300 days.
(In addition to the particular indulgenced prayer or action, there are usually other conditions/requirements that must be met to gain indulgences. I know there are requirements for plenary indulgences.)

The days/years never meant that our “time” in purgatory would be shortened by that amount. Neither did the days/years ever mean that particular acts or prayers had to be performed for that length of time.

Another thread about indulgences has just started on this forum. You might want to check it out. The second post on it contains some links to good articles.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569302

 

[PopeMobile]

It’s important to understand just what the number of days/years referred to. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on Indulgences:
To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
So, the elimination of days/years etc., just means that we no longer relate the benefits we receive from the indulgenced act/prayer to the benefits that would have been received by so many days or years of “the ancient canonical penance”.

Now, I’m not even sure what is meant by the “ancient canonical penance”.
(I’ll have to see if I can find out; my curiosity is peaked. )
But, to give an example: Say there was a prayer that carried an indulgence of 300 days. That meant if you said that prayer, you would receive spiritual benefits about the equivalent to those received by performing the canonical penance for 300 days.
(In addition to the particular indulgenced prayer or action, there are usually other conditions/requirements that must be met to gain indulgences. I know there are requirements for plenary indulgences.)

The days/years never meant that our “time” in purgatory would be shortened by that amount. Neither did the days/years ever mean that particular acts or prayers had to be performed for that length of time.

Another thread about indulgences has just started on this forum. You might want to check it out. The second post on it contains some links to good articles.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569302

Thanks for your response. I already understood everything you shared, but it still doesn’t quite answer the question of which “days and weeks” etc… was abolished. I have several books from the 19th century which outline indulgences, all of which give instructions along the lines of “perform such and such act x number of times/days and receive an indulgence of x number of days.” I need to know which of those two was abolished, the concept of doing acts/penance/prayers for “days and weeks” or the concept of receiving an amount of “days and weeks” for satisfying the requirements of the indulgence.

So in our example of 300 days, let’s say the indulgence was worded like this:

“Say the rosary three times a day for 30 days and receive an indulgence of 300 days” (that’s only meant as a simplified example)

What was abolished, requiring the act be performed for 30 days, or the awarding of an indulgence of 300 days?

My guess is that it is the latter because the application of indulgences was changed. Therefore the thought – I think – is that it was the 300 days (in our example) that was abolished because in essence nobody knows how much temporal punishment someone had actually deserved for their sin.

I really need to know a definitive answer to this.

Thanks in advance to everyone who helps me on this.

 

[Nita]

Thanks for your response. I already understood everything you shared, but it still doesn’t quite answer the question of which “days and weeks” etc… was abolished. I have several books from the 19th century which outline indulgences, all of which give instructions along the lines of “perform such and such act x number of times/days and receive an indulgence of x number of days.” I need to know which of those two was abolished, the concept of doing acts/penance/prayers for “days and weeks” or the concept of receiving an amount of “days and weeks” for satisfying the requirements of the indulgence.

So in our example of 300 days, let’s say the indulgence was worded like this:

“Say the rosary three times a day for 30 days and receive an indulgence of 300 days” (that’s only meant as a simplified example)

What was abolished, requiring the act be performed for 30 days, or the awarding of an indulgence of 300 days?

My guess is that it is the latter because the application of indulgences was changed. Therefore the thought – I think – is that it was the 300 days (in our example) that was abolished because in essence nobody knows how much temporal punishment someone had actually deserved for their sin.

I really need to know a definitive answer to this.

Thanks in advance to everyone who helps me on this.

Your guess is right; it was the 300 days that was abolished.

We still have various prayers that involve saying the prayer more than once. A popular prayer form is what is called a novena. (The word “novena” is based on the Latin for “9”)
There are several Novena methods I’ve come across:
Some ask that the prayer be said once a day for 9 days;
Some that you say the prayer once an hour for 9 consecutive hours;
One that you attend Mass and receive communion for 9 successive first Fridays of the month.

There are many other variations in the number of days that may be connected with a particular prayer.

 

[PopeMobile]

Your guess is right; it was the 300 days that was abolished.

We still have various prayers that involve saying the prayer more than once. A popular prayer form is what is called a novena. (The word “novena” is based on the Latin for “9”)
There are several Novena methods I’ve come across:
Some ask that the prayer be said once a day for 9 days;
Some that you say the prayer once an hour for 9 consecutive hours;
One that you attend Mass and receive communion for 9 successive first Fridays of the month.

There are many other variations in the number of days that may be connected with a particular prayer.

Okay, so do I understand correctly that this (the results of Indulgentiarum Doctrina) means all previous Papal decrees which assigned a certain number of days for performing certain acts are now considered invalid? (the numbers of days/weeks/years I mean) I didn’t realize a Pope had the authority to override the decrees of previous Popes, especially if there are lots of them.

 

[PopeMobile]

I’m writing a summary about Indulgences for the purpose of properly instructing a Protestant audience, and want to make sure that I have everything correct. It’s meant as a source of information and NOT a critique of Indulgences or the premises. There is a lot of misunderstanding amongst Protestants as to just what an Indulgence is, what it does, etc…

I, too, was also in that boat until I started studying it. Please look at the following paragraph which I have written and tell me if it is a good description, or if there are errors please show me so that I can correct them. I think I have it all right, but please let me know. Thanks!

===

The value and administration of indulgences is based on three premises, (1) that the intrinsic value of Christ’s sufferings, as well as the righteous acts of Mary and the saints has produced a superabundance of value – a “treasury of merit”, (2) that Christ gave to the Church the authority to forgive people’s sins, and (3) that this authority and the use of the “treasury” is entrusted to the Pope who as Christ’s vicar is the visible head of the church. When one confesses a sin to their priest they are charged to perform certain prayers or acts accompanied by a spirit of repentance and by this they are absolved by the priest for their sins. But the act of sin, even though forgiven, has violated divine justice and this justice must be satisfied. This is accomplished through temporal punishments which take the form of either suffering in this life, or a period of time in Purgatory after death where the soul is purged of the effects that sin had upon their character which they had failed to address in this life. The receipt of an indulgence cancels out some or all of the temporal punishments that one deserved through the act of sinning. Indulgences can also be applied to those souls which are in Purgatory through an act known as “suffrage”. The Church teaches that once a soul departs this life the Church no longer has jurisdiction over them because they have at that point entered into “God’s tribunal”. However, by obtaining an indulgence for a departed soul and the act of pleading with God in prayer for mercy He will likely accept it and thus the soul will either have all or part of their time in Purgatory cancelled out because someone else was able to satisfy the requirements of divine justice by themselves engaging in the good works the value of which are applied to the departed soul.

 

[Nita]

Okay, so do I understand correctly that this (the results of Indulgentiarum Doctrina) means all previous Papal decrees which assigned a certain number of days for performing certain acts are now considered invalid? (the numbers of days/weeks/years I mean)

?? It doesn’t invalidate any of the benefits received before the bull. It just changed the way the benefits are described; they are no longer compared to the ancient canonical penance. The Church still has assigned indulgences to certain prayers - but we no longer describe them as being equivalent to a certain number of days and years…

I didn’t realize a Pope had the authority to override the decrees of previous Popes, especially if there are lots of them.

The pope definitely has authority to change decrees that are not infallible doctrines. The day/year notations attached to certain prayers were in no way doctrinal.

 

[Nita]

Quote:
The value and administration of indulgences is based on three premises, (1) that the intrinsic value of Christ’s sufferings, as well as the righteous acts of Mary and the saints has produced a superabundance of value – a “treasury of merit”, (2) that Christ gave to the Church the authority to forgive people’s sins, and (3) that this authority and the use of the “treasury” is entrusted to the Pope who as Christ’s vicar is the visible head of the church. When one confesses a sin to their priest they are charged to perform certain prayers or acts accompanied by a spirit of repentance and by this they are absolved by the priest for their sins. But the act of sin, even though forgiven, has violated divine justice and this justice must be satisfied. This is accomplished through temporal punishments which take the form of either suffering in this life, or a period of time in Purgatory after death where the soul is purged of the effects that sin had upon their character which they had failed to address in this life. The receipt of an indulgence cancels out some or all of the temporal punishments that one deserved through the act of sinning. Indulgences can also be applied to those souls which are in Purgatory through an act known as “suffrage”. The Church teaches that once a soul departs this life the Church no longer has jurisdiction over them because they have at that point entered into “God’s tribunal”. However, by obtaining an indulgence for a departed soul and the act of pleading with God in prayer for mercy He will likely accept it and thus the soul will either have all or part of their time in Purgatory cancelled out because someone else was able to satisfy the requirements of divine justice by themselves engaging in the good works the value of which are applied to the departed soul.

Today 2:07 pm

Where is this quote from?

 

[PopeMobile]

Where is this quote from?

Me – I wrote it for a paper (not yet finished) which happens to have a small section on Indulgences. The paper is for a Protestant audience, and because the topic is so misunderstood by Protestants I’d spent several hours going over canon law, various encyclicals and bulls, Catholic commentaries, etc… in order to obtain the correct view.

Did I do it correctly? Are the facts correct? If I got something wrong please correct me. Obviously as you can probably tell by my ignorance I am a Protestant, but my intent is to properly understand Catholic doctrine - not to debunk it but simply to understand from an academic point of view.

Thanks for the help!

 

[Nita]

Me

Sorry for missing that in your Post #6

– I wrote it for a paper (not yet finished) which happens to have a small section on Indulgences. The paper !is for a Protestant audience, and because the topic is so misunderstood by Protestants I’d spent several hours going over canon law, various encyclicals and bulls, Catholic commentaries, etc… in order to obtain the correct view.

Did I do it correctly? Are the facts correct? If I got something wrong please correct me. Obviously as you can probably tell by my ignorance I am a Protestant, but my intent is to properly understand Catholic doctrine - not to debunk it but simply to understand from an academic point of view.

Thanks for the help!

You sound sincere - and I thank you for your efforts to present our teaching accurately.
I will go over what you have written and check for accuracy - but I want to do it carefully and not just off the top of my head. Which of course means that it will take some time. I’m going to have to do some of the reading you’ve already done!

Do you want suggestions also?
For example, where you say “intrinsic value of Christ’s sufferings” - I’d suggest “infinite” rather than “intrinsic”. It’s how the Catechism expresses it, and it’s the way we normally speak of the value/merits of Jesus.
Go to paragraph #1476 vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

t’s late here, so will have to wait till tomorrow to get started.

 

[PopeMobile]

Thanks, Nita! I appreciate your taking the time to help me.

I would like to request other readers to please post their understanding and offer some help.

 

[Nita]

I think I will give my thoughts in several posts, rather than trying to cover everything at once. And I’ll give the official sources underlying those thoughts.
(I know you already have either the materials or the links, but I’m including the links for the benefit of others.)

1. As I mentioned last night, I would suggest using “infinite” rather than “Intrinsic”. At that point at hadn’t done any research and I figured as soon as I made the suggested change in stronger tones, I’d end up discovering that usage in one of the documents. However, that has not been the case. I have only come across the words “infinite” or “infinite and inexhaustible”.
   The reason I think it’s critical to use the word infinite is that others may not realize Catholics recognize that characteristic (infinite) as being included in the word intrinsic. Using the word infinite lets everyone know that we are well aware that the merits of Jesus alone are MORE than sufficient to redeem us and our teachings in no way are meant to imply that Jesus’ merits alone are insufficient to redeem us. Any merits on our part that are added to the Treasury are a result of Jesus allowing us to have a part - a share - in His work.
2. You give 3 premises for the Catholic teaching of indulgences. I think the 2nd one you give - “that Christ gave the Church the authority to forgive people’s sins” - should be
   deleted, at least as a premise on which the teaching of indulgences is based.
   Altho the statement is true, and is the basis of the sacrament of Confession and other Church teachings regarding the forgiveness of sins, it’s important to remember that indulgences do not forgive sin - the guilt of sin.

From “Indulgentiarum Doctrina”, section titled NORMS (follows Chapter 5):
“n,1–An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned…”
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6INDULG.HTM

From “Code of Canon Law”:
“992–An indulgence is the remission in the sight of God of the temporal punishment due for sins, the guilt of which has already been forgiven. :…”
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

From “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”:
“#1471 …
An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, …”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

From the Catholic Encyclopedia":
“What An Indulgence Is Not:
It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. …”

“What An Indulgence Is
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven…”
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[Nita]

TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT

In the previous post I suggested the removal of your second premise because it can give the erroneous impression that indulgences forgive sins. As the quotes show, what indulgences actually do is remit temporal punishment. Therefore, I think it would be very helpful to your paper if you included instead a premise that stated indulgences are based on the Church’s teaching regarding temporal punishments, and give a brief explanation so they understand what is meant by temporal punishment.
Here are a couple quotes that might be helpful.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

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.83

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.

From the DECREE Fourth Edition of the ‘Enchiridion Indulgentiarum’
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/APINDULG.HTM

However, even after mortal sin has been forgiven and, as a necessary consequence, the eternal punishment it deserves has been remitted, and even if slight or venial sin has been remitted, the forgiven sinner can need further purification, that is, be deserving of temporal punishment to be expiated in this life or in the life to come, namely, in Purgatory. An indulgence, whose purpose is to remit this punishment, is drawn from the Church’s wonderful treasury mentioned above…

 

[Nita]

TREASURY OF THE CHURCH

This post is mostly for your background and understanding – not that there’s error about it in what you wrote.

Regarding your third premise about the Church’s treasury and that the use of this treasury is entrusted to the Pope, it’s possible that others may have been given the power to grant indulgences also. Haven’t really spent any time yet on it to see if other bishops have this power, but at one time they did. For example, the Encyclopedia (which is the older edition, early 1900’s) has the following towards the end of it’s section titled “What An Indulgence Is” –
Quote: 5) In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop)… He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, …

The Code of Canon Law #995 reads:
“Apart from the supreme authority (pope) in the Church, only those can grant indulgences to whom this power is either acknowledged in the law, or given by the Roman Pontiff.”

What I don’t know is whether at this time, the “law has acknowledged” or the “Roman Pontiff given” this power to others.

 

[Nita]

In your following sentence, the underlined portion is inaccurate:
"When one confesses a sin to their priest they are charged to perform certain prayers of acts accompanied by a spirit of repentance and by this they are absolved by the priest for their sins.

When we confess our sins, with a spirit of repentance, the priest pronounces the words “I absolve you from your sins” (or something similar). It is this spoken absolution which forgives our sins. The priest then gives us a “penance” which we must do to help make satisfaction for our sins – (prayers or some other good act).

Code of Canon Law
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3E.HTM

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4D.HTM
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance.

 

[Nita]

The posts really got lengthy – mainly because I wanted to include references to verify my comments - and chose to print them out and provide the links in order to save you time.

One Catholic teaching that also forms a basis for indulgences is the “Communion of Saints”. You have not included it and perhaps you would prefer not to. It is the basis for the any human merits (Mary, the saints, ours) being included in the treasury of the Church/treasury of merits.

It is very difficult to give an explanation of indulgences in one paragraph. You’ve done a good job of condensing.

Good luck with your paper. And I do hope some others will post.

 

[Nita]

In your following sentence, the underlined portion is inaccurate:
"When one confesses a sin to their priest they are charged to perform certain prayers of acts accompanied by a spirit of repentance and by this they are absolved by the priest for their sins.

When we confess our sins, with a spirit of repentance, the priest pronounces the words “I absolve you from your sins” (or something similar). It is this spoken absolution which forgives our sins. The priest then gives us a “penance” which we must do to help make satisfaction for our sins – (prayers or some other good act)

Just wanted to clarify that the “penance” - the prayers or works assigned after our absolution - is part of the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (also referred to as Confession). They are not indulgences…