The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[Don_Ruggero]

I suspect CA member Don Ruggero can confirm that those in higher positions in the Catholic church (particularly those at the Vatican and contemporary Catholic Reformation scholarship) deny the sort of interpretation of Luther that O’Connor held to.

“Deny” would not be strong enough. From multiple pontificates to PCPCU to the academy & academics collaborating with the Holy See, we completely repudiate such polemical writings

The summary is well given in From Conflict to Communion:

1. These efforts led directly to the ecumenical project, begun in 1980 by Lutheran and Catholic theologians in Germany on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, of a Catholic recognition of the Augsburg Confession. The extensive achievements of a later ecumenical working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians, tracing its roots back to this project of Catholic research on Luther, resulted in the study The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?

/…/

1. The Council also affirmed elements of sanctification and truth even outside the structures of the Roman Catholic Church. It asserted, “some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church,” and it named these elements “the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too” (UR 1). The Council also spoke of the “many liturgical actions of the Christian religion” that are used by the divided “brethren” and said, “these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (UR 3). The acknowledgement extended not only to the individual elements and actions in these communities, but also to the “divided churches and communities” themselves. “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (UR 1.3).

/…/

1. Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John Paul II. The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as a “witness to the gospel.”
2. Pope Benedict also recognized the ways in which the person and theology of Martin Luther pose a spiritual and theological challenge to Catholic theology today when, in 2011, he visited the Augustinian Friary in Erfurt where Luther had lived as a friar…

We are in completely different place today, thanks to the Council Fathers who embraced the ecumenical movement as a divine imperative for the Catholic Church.

 

[TertiumQuid]

There are plenty of Luther’s works which demonstrate vile language and an unbalanced mind.
Example -
“Reason is the devil’s whore. Throw dung at her and make her ugly.”

It’s puzzling as to why someone on Catholic Answers (or any Catholic for that matter) would post this quote against Luther.

The two sentences of the quote are each from different pages with about five paragraphs separating them. In context, Luther didn’t reject reason. Rather, it was to be subject to and ruled by faith. For the first line of the quote, reason is that which wrongly informs a man that particular theological interpretations are not sin. Luther had the fanatics in mind and their interpretation of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. This same thought applies to the second sentence. Luther is preaching against the views of the sacramentarians in regard to their “reasonable” interpretations of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. In Luther’s theology, “this is my body” really means, “this is my body.” It’s reason, according to Luther, that won’t accept what the Bible plainly says about the sacraments because it tries to undermine what God has said.

You can read the context for yourself in WA 51:123-134, or in LW 51: 371-380.

 

[JonNC]

This is not surprising at all, James. In a thread where the main text is written by Father O’Connor, it would be surprising if Luther was actually quoted fully and in context.

 

[Jaaye]

We left off the Luther timeline with Luther having received rather rapid promotions, some by his own admission in excess of his ability or merit.

Recall he was ordained a priest in 1507, began a professorship in 1508 at Wittenberg University and by 1512 (a mere four years later) was both a Doctor of Theology and Doctor of the Bible awarded in the same year, just 2 days apart

1508 Luther begins teach Theology at the University of Wittenberg
Mar 9, 1508 Received a bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies
1509 Bachelor’s Degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard
Oct 19, 1512 Doctor of Theology; Assumes Chair that Staupitz resigns and recommends to Luther
Oct 21, 1512 Doctor in Bible, received into the Senate of the Theological Faculty at Wittenberg

“One day in 1511 Staupitz told Luther that he was arranging for Luther to take a Doctorate in theology. Martin was incredulous. What, at the mere age of twenty-eight years?! That was something for a man of forty years or more. At the Erfurt friary, the recipients of the doctorate were nearer fifty. And how could he possibly add the work entailed to all his other tasks, now that he was sub-prior?” [Ref: Augnet – Staupitz]

“Staupitz had also arranged for Friar Karlstadt at Wittenberg to attain a doctorate early in life, and also young Friar Wenceslaus Link at Erfurt in 1511. He said that accelerated receipt of the degree could be arranged if it were necessary for promotion to a higher academic position in a university.” [Ibid]

Apparently Staupitz’s motivation was possibly two-fold, one was to give the newly founded University (now only about 10 years old vs. for example the University of Heidelberg founded in 1386) more highly-credentialed professors to attract more revenue-paying students and also a personal motivation — as Staupitz wanted to retire. Staupitz resigned the Chair of Theology at the university and upon his advisement had it awarded to Luther, he then packed his bags and moved back to southern Germany.

Shortly thereafter Luther was also named District Vicar of the Augustinian order for Saxony and Thuringia. The promotions and expanded workload weighed on him, he needed 2 secretaries, continued to teach, preach and managed the finances for 41 monks. … Continued

 

[Jaaye]

…Continued from Above

Apparently to gain more administrative time, he began to abandon his spiritual exercises and rules of his order. He began to omit praying his daily breviary for weeks on end, and then would assign himself excessively strict mortifications and penances following his own methods (contrary to the rules of his order and spiritual director)

“When I was a monk,” Luther later wrote, “I used immediately to believe that it was all over with my salvation every time I experienced the concupiscence of the flesh…. I used to try various remedies; I used to go to confession every day, but that didn’t help me at all. For this concupiscence of the flesh was always returning, so that I could never find peace, but was everlastingly tormented with the thought, ‘You have committed such and such a sin; …and all your good works are just useless.” [Ref: History of the Reformation]

“I prescribed special tasks to myself and had my own ways. My superiors fought against this singularity and they did so rightly. I was an infamous persecutor and murderer of my own life, because I fasted, prayed, watched, and tried myself beyond my powers, which was nothing but suicide” [ Jurgens I, 577, 585]

A victim of religious scrupulosity … it became for him a vicious circle with no relief in sight as he had purposefully separated himself from obeying the counsel of his own spiritual directors and confessors. He apparently had also forgotten (or laid aside) Christ’s own words, “Without Me, you can do nothing”.

He would have benefited from taking to heart Staupitz’s advice:

“Enough, my son: you speak of sin, but know not what sin is; if you desire the assistance of God, do not act like a child any longer. God is not angry with you but you are angry with God.” [Staupitz]

Unable to have trust and confidence in the forgiveness, mercy and love imparted by God from the confessional, he continued to seek justification by his own self-imposed penances, perennially frustrated by his own sinful works he believed could not be forgiven and were in fact leading him to Hell.

His mind apparently obsessed over this perceived ”trap” he believed mankind’s salvation was caught up in, seeking an escape.

References:AUGNET : 4374 Johann von Staupitz
Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Reformation,r evised ed. P. 95, Image Books, New York, 1960

Return to Previous Post in Luther Series; Background of Holy Roman Empire:The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #386 by Jaaye

 

[Jaaye]

Luther Didn’t Know What Indulgences Were?

“When many people from Wittenberg ran after indulgences to Juterborg and Zerbst, I did not know – as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me — what indulgences were, but no one else knew either. I carefully began to preach that one could do something better and more certain than to purchase indulgences. On an earlier occasion I had already preached here in the castle against indulgences, but was not very graciously received by Duke Frederick, who was fond of his collegiate church.” Martin Luther, Wider Hans Worst, 1541

It’s unclear from the statement above what time period he is referring to, since the 1541 remark refers to a previous memory. Raymond Peraudi, papal legate, preached a plenary indulgence at the University of Erfurt in 1502 when Luther was enrolled – so it’s hard to understand he had no clue what an indulgence was? There was a Jubilee Indulgence in 1500 throughout Europe and the St. Peter’s indulgence was in 1510 when Pope Julius II laid the cornerstone of the new basilica; that particular indulgence involved almsgiving throughout all of Christendom for the building of St. Peters.

He does state that he had “previously” preached against indulgences and that Duke Frederick (Luther’s Prince and Elector) was not fond of him doing so, and let that be known to him. Duke Frederick was reputed to have one of the largest collections of religious relics in Europe; one source said 17,000 articles and another said 19,000 articles… allegedly including such items as the tip of St. Anne’s finger, a bullrush from Moses’ basket and fabric from Our Lady’s dress.

The Duke was in the habit of displaying his collection of relics to the populace on certain feast days, which would generate a fair amount of ancillary revenue from the increased amount of people coming into the area for feast day celebrations, as well as bring in interested buyers seeking to expand their own relic collections. Since piously contemplating a religious relic can also be a source of an indulgence, it is understandable the Duke may not have been in favor of Luther preaching against (all) indulgences.

The Castle Church’s rededication ceremony each January was one of the days where the relics were displayed (each year since 1503). The date of this sermon by Luther is uncertain, but scholars believe it is likely from either January 1516 or January 1517. So it is important to understand that Luther was preaching about indulgences prior to Johann Tetzler’s arrival in the neighboring bishopric preaching the St. Peter’s indulgence — which has been cast as the impetus for publishing his 95 thesis. This is likely not true …. as Luther is preaching on indulgences previous to that time and Luther himself said on several occasions and told his own bishop, Hieronymus Schulz, he had been thinking on the matter …”for some time”.
… Continued

 

[Jaaye]

In this sermon he affirms the pope’s authority to issue an indulgence

"First, I bear witness that the opinion of the Pope is true and correct," at least that which he utters in letters and syllables” [ referring to the papal bull announcing the indulgence]

and doesn’t condemn indulgences but warns against them. He considered them a “lazy-man’s-method” of contrition, and believes seeking “true” contrition, while harder, is more beneficial as it exacts a (required and necessary) punishment for sin:

“You see, therefore, how dangerous a thing the preaching of indulgences is, which teaches a mutilated grace, namely, to flee satisfaction and punishment, so that an ‘operation of error’ must be feared, as the Apostle predicted [2 Thessalonians 2:11]. For how easily can true contrition and so lax and bountiful an indulgence be preached at one and the same time, when true contrition desires a rigid exaction of punishment and such an indulgence relaxes it too much?"

So while he didn’t dispute the pope’s authority to announce an indulgence and outlining the requirements to obtain one, nor did he discount the efficacy of them for many people, he did note that for some people … it was like putting their foot on the banana peel as it would impel them to seek the easy road, the easy way out – which was not in their (ultimate) best spiritual interest.

Bear in mind that we’re talking about several different types of indulgences, as all indulgences are not created equally; indulgences that involve almsgiving are usually more the exception than the rule. Many indulgenced acts do not require alms, but rather fasting and praying … so the “cost” is not a monetary one, but rather the sum of the pious time, effort and attentive devotions of the petitioner.

Indulgences involving almsgiving were successfully used by the catholic church to fund-raise money for needed projects throughout Europe over the course of several centuries: including the building of hospitals, schools, bridges, dams, roads, harbors, fortifications against invaders and the crusades to the holy land,— as well as the design and construction of the numerous great cathedrals (many still standing to this day) that served as encyclopedic catechisms-in-stone designed to visually teach the faith to a largely illiterate population. [Ref: Indulgences as a Social Factor in the Middle Ages by Nikolaus Paulus]

Whenever money is involved, however, it increases the probability of graft and corruption, a fact that was not unknown or unnoticed by the Church, having been the subject of several councils to reform the process of issuing indulgences that involved almsgiving around this time:
Council of Constance 1414; Council of Florence, 1438-1443 and the one most recent to Luther’s time — The Lateran V Council, 1512-1517.

References: Article Reprinted from Lutheran Quarterly: Martin Luther’s Sermon on Indulgences 1517 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...dulgence.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0bvH5QHLm1LsYZsgZvUV9B

 

[Arkansan]

Some dispute the reliability of Table Talk, since he didn’t write it (although those who wrote it had no reason to portray him badly.

Far as I’m aware, the rest are all pretty well indisputable.

 

[Jaaye]

Some dispute the reliability of Table Talk,

Yet Lutheran publishers always seem to include TableTalk as part of Luther’s works. See Post # 336 on this thread citing a link to a 55 volume set of Luther’s Works…the link is provided below to the post… and if you open up the link to the 55 Volume Set of Luther’s Works … Table Talk is included (Volume # 54 in this set). JonNC provided the link and cites it in his post as the 55 Volume Set is “Luther’s own words …”

So I’m thinking if Lutherans consider Table Talk to be part of the compendium of Luther’s works … I can go along with that. And, while you are correct … he did not write Table Talk, they ARE eyewitness accounts of pronouncements and remarks made by Luther … when he was among friends; these are remarks he made in the company of friends, not when he was being attacked are under provocation … but when he was relaxed and offering his opinion, many of them at the dinner table (hence the name).

The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) Apologetics

Luther’s own words By comparison, Father O’Connor’s booklet is less than 75 pages. Accepting his presentation based on a few snippets is like evaluating Catholic teaching based on Catholic quotes presented in a document authored by Michael Gendron.

 

[Jaaye]

Offering The St.Peter’s Indulgence Was Not The Pope’s Idea

Archbishop Albrecht announced to the Pope that he wanted a third Bishop’s territory. This would expand his existing ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the bishopric of Magdeburg and the administration of Halberstadt to then also include the Archbishops chair at Mainz – providing Albrecht and his dynastic family both financial and political benefits.

Pope Leo agrees, but also insists Albrecht pay an additional fee of 14,000 gulden, over and above the customary “first-fruits” fee of 14,000 gulden for the Archbishop’s seat, and also because Albrecht is awfully young and about to assume the responsibilities for an (unprecedented) 3rd bishop’s territory. Albrecht is (seriously) cash poor and it is highly unlikely he can afford these fees.

Enter the Fugger’s Banking House of Southern Germany (ie loan sharks of Europe) – who come up with a creative plan to finance this third see for Albrecht — who has no cash on hand but DOES have a 5-star, platinum-coated credit rating as he is one of the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg.

The Fuggers agree to loan Albrecht the money for the Mainz bishopric fee, as well as the additional fee the Pope is assessing. The Fugger creative financiers propose that Albrecht’s loan can be paid back if the Pope will agree to issue a new St. Peter’s indulgence for a term of 8 years within Albrecht’s three bishopics (Magdebourg, Halberstadt and Mainz). Half of the proceeds go to Albrecht to repay the Fugger loan, and the pope can keep the other half as an 8 year revenue stream to fund the building of St. Peter’s new basilica.

The expected 8 year total revenue was conservatively calculated to be est. 70,000 gulden… more than enough to pay back the loan…. plus interest, fees, salaries and expenses, as well as … oh yes…… the 3% commission to the Fuggers.

Not so fast …… the emperor has to approve any almsgiving indulgence offered in the empire, as almsgiving indulgences were historically the prime fundraising method for building projects, dams, harbors, etc. and this proposed one needed not to compete with any building plans the emperor may already have in mind. He was also not pleased with the prospect of the increase in power this additional third Bishop’s seat would give Albrecht and the Hohenzollerns, — but eventually the emperor agreed to allow it, in return for receiving 1000 gulden a year right off the top of the proceeds.

So, as you see – there are many fingers in this pie and there is more involved than just the simplistic and popular misunderstanding that “the Pope wanted money to build St. Peter’s so he started selling indulgences all over Europe …”

Ref: “A World Ablaze, The Rise of Martin Luther and the Birth of the Reformation”; Craig Harline, Ph.D –Professor of History at Brigham Young University; https://history.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/Harline.aspx

Ref: Jakob Fugger - Wikipedia

COMING UP NEXT: Let’s unpack this …. So How Much Money Are We Talking, Here? - and – Was the Pope Actually Selling Bishop Seats to the Highest Bidders?

 

[JonNC]

They are usually included. What they don’t do is provide snippets taken out of context then misrepresented like O’Connor and other polemicists, (who are generally dismissed by modern Catholic theologians) did.

 

[phil19034]

I’m reading about the Reformation as I can, and I started a thread on the Catholic failures and sins which led to the reformation.

I’m also reading about Luther. Some of the quotes attributed to him are shocking, but I want to be sure they are accurate.

For example this site quotes Luther as saying that Jesus committted adultery with the woman at the well:

May I suggest this following CD from the Augustine Institute.

Understanding Luther: A Catholic Perspective on the Protestant Reformation - Lighthouse Catholic Media

 

[Jaaye]

EXAMINING THE INDULGENCE LOAN

In the previous post in this series, we found out the Pope did not independently initiate the St. Peter’s indulgence for the purpose of rebuilding St. Peter’s Basilica. Offering the indulgence was part of the repayment plan on a loan taken out by the Hohenzollerns and financed by the Fuggers Banking House. [Link to Review Previous Post # 372 – Offering the St.Peter’s Indulgence Was Not the Pope’s Idea - The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #402 by Jaaye]

I couldn’t find the interest rate on the loan, all I could find were several sources who speculated it was in the 30-40% range. While that is an obscene “loan-shark” interest rate to us, the RISK on the money to the lender was HUGE! No guarantee they’d ever see their money repaid to them ever. The German princes (est. 200 separate principalities, dukedoms, etc.) in the Holy Roman Empire at this time were constantly scheming, quarrelling and feuding with each other — and war tends to seriously tank the posterity of a region … as well a floods, poor crop harvests, plagues and other unstable deleterious effects contributing to the Fuggers possibly never seeing a penny of repayment.

Okay … let’s unpack this. Each Bishop is only supposed to have one territory, so right off the bat, we know that things are not the way they are supposed to be. Additionally, Albrecht is young (24 yrs old)… yet the Mainz Bishopic is a great lure because of the power that comes with it. Power? Yes, because its an elector seat … remember the Holy Roman Emperor is elected by 7 electors … voted by 4 princes from the dynastic houses of Germany and three Archbishops: the archbishops of Cologne, Trier, and Mainz [See previous post # 356- The geopolitics of the Holy Roman Empire -The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right) - #386 by Jaaye]

… Continued Below

 

[Jaaye]

…Continued from Above

The emperor, Maximilian I, is old and unlikely to be breathing too much longer — a new election is imminent, bringing with it an opportunity to change the balance of power among the German princely houses, as well as the potential of massive bribes greasing the palms of the Hohenzollerns for not only their votes in the upcoming election of Emperor … but also for selectively “applying” their influence over the course of many future years.

Frederick the Elector (Luther’s patron) is disturbed and irritated at the prospect of Albrecht securing the Mainz bishopic … not so much because Albrecht is so young, Frederick’s own brother (Ernst) had been appointed to the Bishopic of Magdeburg when he was only 12 — and Frederick pushed him to become Archbishop of Mainz when that seat was last open in 1500. If Ernst had been successful it would have given the Wettin dynasty a 2-vote majority if they had been able to make that happen — exactly what Albrecht and the Hohenzollerns were scheming to do now. Albrecht was the 2nd son, his older brother Joachim already held the dynastic voting seat, so by adding Albrecht as the new Archbishop of Mainz, the Hohenzollerns would be able to edge out Frederick’s influence and he was none too happy about that.

=====
References:

“A World Ablaze, The Rise of Martin Luther and the Birth of the Reformation”; Craig Harline, Ph.D –Professor of History at Brigham Young University; https://history.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/Harline.aspx

Bio of Bishop Albrecht; http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1518.htm#Brandenburg

Bio of Ernst II; Ernst II of Saxony - Wikipedia

COMING UP NEXT: Charges of Simony … Did the Pope Actually Sell the Archbishop Seat?

 

[Jaaye]

Is the Pope Selling the Archbishop Seat?

So the pope says Albrecht must pay 14,000 gulden as first fruits to gain the Archbishop of Mainz seat, and because he is young (under 30) and this is a third seat, he will also need to pay an additional 14,000 gulden. Is the pope selling the archbishop seat? Claims of simony (selling an ecclesiastical office) have been made, but the first fruits/Annates/servicio which is a tax or fee paid by the newly ordained bishop has been church practice since around the 13th century with the custom dating all the way back to the 6th century (see Link below for add’l information). It has 4 classifications with varying amounts for each. As I understand it this was a fee based on the expected revenue to be generated from the district and is pre-paid up front in various terms, although half-year portions were common.

How much is 14,000 gulden? I wish I knew. Converting 16th century currencies to present USD’s is not so easy, although there are several online calculators, (that all reported widely variable results). What is missing is some standard with which to judge the value. How much is a typical daily wage in this region of the Holy Roman Empire at this time? How much do things cost? And then I found a report that Prince Frederick took a pilgrimage to Rome that cost 40,000 gulden; and in Luther’s letters he’s contemplating purchasing a home in 1534 for 440 gulden. So the 40,000 gulden trip from Germany to Rome (with an unknown amount of participants for an unknown period of time) is well within the “discretionary spending” of a frugal prince (Frederick the Elector was known to be a little close-with-a-buck on personal expenditures). And a house (suitable for Luther and 6 children) is 440 gulden. Consider also that 14,000 gulden was 20% of the anticipated 70,000 gulden over the 8 year term; and, the emperor was taking a cumulative 8,000 gulden right off the top … which would be 57% of the first 14,0000 gulden fee… so I’m backing into the premise that 14,000 gulden is not in and of itself a fortune.

Ref: First Fruits/Annates: Annates - Wikipedia

…Continued

 

[Jaaye]

… Continued from Above…

To Albrecht … it seems from all I can find that the first 14,000 gulden may have been manageable if he squeaked by, but the second 14,000 gulden tacked on by the Pope put it out of reach. And I have to wonder if that was not intentional maneuvering on the part of the Pope? OR was the Pope just being greedy? (as many people claim). I’m not so sure, by assessing the second 14,000 gulden I think he knew he was putting it out of reach for Albrecht, which was a “reason” other than …”I’m the Pope and I say No”. If you look at it that way …it’s not a totally bad plan…. Albrecht and the Hohenzollerns aren’t pissed off at the Pope, the Pope allows everybody to save face and also has the opportunity to extricate himself from and side-step the request. Then the Fuggers showed up with their financing plan and the Pope was pretty well “caught”. He couldn’t very well say “No” at that point — since he had previously pretty much framed his agreement as …. “if only” Albrecht could pay the fees. The Pope’s last hope of avoiding this whole unpleasant mess may have arrived if the emperor had said “No” — and the emperor apparently thinks about it … and then decides to take a percentage off the top in exchange for his permission to go forward. So … welcome to Medieval Europe where plots and politics and scheming abound.

In the Fall of 1516 Albrecht receives from Pope Leo X a Bull agreeing to offer plenary indulgences in all three of Albrechts’ territories (Magdeburg, Halberstadt and Mainz) and Albrecht makes plans to go forward. Dominican monk Johann Tetzler is hired to supervise this project over its multi-year term. He is paid a salary and expenses, he did not receive a percent of proceeds as has been erroneously claimed in the past.

Ref: “A World Ablaze, The Rise of Martin Luther and the Birth of the Reformation”; Craig Harline, Ph.D –Professor of History at Brigham Young University; https://history.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty/Harline.aspx

Ref: First Fruits/Annates: Annates - Wikipedia

Ref: Bio of Bishop Albrecht; http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1518.htm#Brandenburg

COMING UP NEXT: What is an indulgence? How Does it Work, And… Where Did Teztler Go Wrong?

 

[Jaaye]

What is an Indulgence?

An indulgence is the remission of unresolved punishment due to sin. Sin? The definition of sin is the alienation and separation from God. So, by your purposeful actions contrary to the Gospel and the Laws of God, you have chosen to remove yourself from God’s grace … you have elected to alienate and separate yourself from God. For Catholics, sacramental confession is one of the most frequent ways of being restored to God, requiring a contrite heart, confessing of sins and a desire of making satisfaction for your sins (penance). Confession  Contrition  Satisfaction

Look at it this way … God loves you unceasingly and continually pours out to you unending graces for your salvation like a bucket of water being poured on you. If you are in communion with God and cooperating with his grace, your soul is like a sponge that soaks up the grace and expands and grows. If you have alienated and separated yourself from God, your sin has encased your own soul inside a shell of granite ….God is still pouring graces upon you, He never stops or gives up, but since you have used your free will to choose to withdraw from Him, His grace does not benefit you —because in this analogy it is like pouring water onto granite. You have made that choice to live outside and beyond the healing and love of God’s grace. You can fix this at any time. Via the sacrament of confession you can choose to be restored to God and (once again) absorb his grace.

The sacrament of confession , which involves confessing honestly and contritely, receiving absolution from the priest and performing your penance removes both the guilt of sin and the ETERNAL punishment of sin (going to Hell). People are damned to Hell for unrepented and unconfessed sins – NOT sins that they have repented and confessed. “Removing the guilt of sin” means it is GONE … you no longer need to ruminate over it … you have confessed it and it is forever discharged.

Your sin is against God and the priest will assign you a penance … but God will judge if the penance is sufficient – only God can do such a thing. So it’s possible some TEMPORAL (temporary) punishment for your sin may remain past the penance assigned by your confessor ---- and this needs to be paid either on earth while living, or in Purgatory after death. Why? The stain of sin is not removed from your soul until satisfaction for your sin is complete – which as stated, only God can know such a thing. …. Continued Below

 

[Jaaye]

Continued from Above ………

There is no sin in Heaven, no sin in the presence of God (i.e. sin=alienation & separation from God). Since you have confessed the sin, the guilt is absolved and the ETERNAL punishment has been satisfied (i.e. you do not deserve Hell); so Purgatory offers you the chance to purge from your soul any remaining stain of sin your soul may have at the time of your death — so you CAN enter Heaven.

Can you satisfy this unresolved debt while still living and possibly avoid Purgatory? Yes – through prayers, fasting and almsgiving. Living a prayerful life, following the Gospel teachings and God’s commandments will “pour” God’s graces upon you, which collectively serve to satisfy any unresolved punishment that may still be owing for your previously confessed and repented sins.

Additionally, the Pope’s authority makes available to you another means of remitting your unresolved punishment due to sin — through the offering of an indulgence. The Enchiridion of Indulgences [See Link Below] is a handbook listing of indulgenced acts of piety and charity sought on behalf of the faithful at the request of popes over the history of the church.

There are two types of indulgences plenary (total satisfaction of the unresolved debt) or a partial indulgence — where only a portion of your debt is remitted. As you can see below, the person seeking an indulgence must be properly disposed to piously observing the 4 conditions in order to receive the indulgence … it’s not like putting a coin in a vending machine, hitting the button and waiting for the “indulgence” to come out.

1. No Attachment to Sin - if you are mired in habitual sin, you must reconcile this with God before seeking the healing grace of an indulgence (For Example: a man who keeps a mistress or is in an adulterous affair and intends to continue doing so, would not be fulfilling this condition)
2. Go to Confession
3. Receive Communion
4. Pray for the Intentions of the Holy Father – a few simple prayers of your choice on his behalf (For Example: saying three “Our Father’s”)

Enchiridion of Indulgences:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiZxL31yZnZAhUCa60KHd-CCTIQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.basilica.ca%2Fdocuments%2F2016%2F10%2FSacred%20Apostolic%20Penitentiary-The%20Enchiridion%20of%20Indulgences.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GJAXOx_KHVZNDVL13Mwmr

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Coming Next – How Does the Pope Have this Ability to Offer Indulgences?

 

[Jaaye]

How Does the Pope Have this Ability to Offer Indulgences?

The diagram below is a pictograph of the three parts of the Catholic Church: Church Triumphant (Heaven), Church Suffering (Purgatory) and Church Militant (us) – the faithful on earth actively engaged in fighting against temptation, sin and evil – while seeking to always remain in communion and cooperation with God’s grace.

I think of it as a “Grace Engine” or “Grace Machine” as the pious acts and prayers of each of the 3 parts of the Church are ceaselessly circulated in love and faith uplifting, consoling, improving and perfecting those in need who seek to know our Lord and do His will.

Church Triumphant has an over-abundance of grace generated by our Lord’s passion and sacrifice; added to that are the additional graces gained by the holy and pious actions of the Blessed Mother and the saints; collectively this is called the Treasury of Grace.

Notice also that the prayers being offered by Church Militant are a balance of Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication. If , for example, a person’s prayer life consists only of supplication (petitions— or asking for things), their prayer life would become much fuller if they sought to have it balanced among all 4 types of prayer, and not just focusing on the one.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

An indulgence is an intercessory prayer to our Lord (requested / petitioned via the Pope’s authority to bind or loose) to receive a portion of that grace from Heaven and apply it either to living souls in Church Militant to reduce or eliminate any lingering stain of sin on their souls, or grieved souls in Church Suffering (Purgatory) in order to lessen or pay in full any temporal punishment that may still remain for the stain of sin on their souls after death for sins previously confessed and forgiven during life.

“There is constant stress on the Holy Father’s declaration that a partial indulgence is a “matching grant”. The Church uses her “power of the keys” and opens “the treasury of the Blood”—the merits of Christ, Our Lady and the Saints, to match whatever remission of the temporal punishment due to sin results from an individual’s careful, loving performance of an indulgenced work.” [Ref Link EWTN]

So now that we may have a better understanding of what an indulgence is and how it “works” let’s get back to the 16th century and see where the indulgence preacher Johannes Tetzler went so wrong…. And understand the nature of Luther’s objections

Reference: https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/INDULGEN.HTM

Coming Next: Preaching the St. Peter’s Indulgence – What Went Wrong and Why Did Luther Object?

 

[MichaelP3]

Can you explain the Treasury of Grace a bit more in that pic? What does it mean and it’s implications?