The History of Indulgences

[Stephentlig]

A quick internet search reveals to me that they began in 1095 with Pope Urban II’s remittance of the crusaders sins for participation in the Crusades.

I’m trying to reconcile how this is possible in 1095, but for the 1095 year gap, there was no such practice of indulgences? How did they suddenly say, “right boys and girls, we are just going to interpret the concept of binding and loosing as meaning we can on the spot remit someones sins with an indulgence”.

There’s quite a large gap there, that has me confused a bit, and any help regarding this would be appreciated.

 

[Thrstypirate]

I’m sure the Queen of Indulgences knows: @Tis_Bearself

 

[Tis_Bearself]

More like The Queen of Cans and Jars.

As for the history of indulgences, Wikipedia is your friend.

Indulgence - Wikipedia

 

[Stephentlig]

Thank you for this. So basically there was no such thing as the remission of temporal punishment due to sin until the 11th and 12th centuries? It was really a lot to do with praying and granting reductions in the penance they had to do here on earth for their sins. For example apostates would have had to do certain types of penances and these could be reduced by the ecclesiastical authorities. Then it just morphed into the Church being able to literally free a person from all temporal punishment due to sin? So that concept didn’t exist at all prior to 1095?

It’s interesting to scroll down and see how the Orthodox in the east approached it too.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So basically there was no such thing as the remission of temporal punishment due to sin until the 11th and 12th centuries? It was really a lot to do with praying and granting reductions in the penance they had to do here on earth for their sins.

Well, yes and no.

The penances we do on earth ARE “temporal punishment due to sin”. Our sin is forgiven and absolved in the confessional, then the priest gives us a penance to do for temporal punishment. The idea of Purgatory is that any temporal punishment we didn’t finish up here on earth, through doing penance or offering up suffering in some way (for example if you had some painful or debilitating illness or a really hard life), gets done in Purgatory before we can enter Heaven. That is why sometimes people speculate that someone who suffered a lot when alive may have gone straight to Heaven because they “had their Purgatory on earth”.

Obviously if you are doing an assigned penance on earth, you don’t need an indulgence to take its place, especially if the assigned penance is something more modern like 10 Hail Marys that you can say easily, and not the kind they used to give that would force you to fast for half the year or make a long arduous pilgrimage to the Holy Land and come back and show proof to the bishop that you’d gone. So, as the Church teaching on purgatory developed, indulgences got focused on taking the place of purgatory time or easing purgatory suffering.

Basically the Church used (and still uses today) the indulgence as a motivational reward for doing something the Church thinks is beneficial to us or others.

 

[Stephentlig]

What I meant was there was no removal of temporal punishment due to sin before 1095 within the concept of the indulgence offered that saying a prayer would remit a number of days you’d spend in purgatory? It was basically you were assigned to do your punishment or penance here on earth, and when you died, any penance you didn’t complete gets done in purgatory. This time is then hastened (or reduced) by the prayers of the Church for your soul. Then the concept of being able to remit someones sins with an indulgence granted here on earth suddenly emerged as a new expression of theology in 1095?

It seems like this practice in a different form was popular in the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the mid 20th century where it died out. They say they don’t agree with the remittance of temporal punishment due to sin because of their different theology on salvation. It would be interesting to know what they teach regarding different theology on salvation that would hinder belief in remittance of temporal punishment due to sin.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What I meant was there was no removal of temporal punishment due to sin before 1095 within the concept of the indulgence offered that saying a prayer would remit a number of days you’d spend in purgatory?

Again, there was a removal of temporal punishment due to sin because the indulgence was in place of a penance. Penance is done for removal of temporal punishment.

With respect to purgatory, the Church didn’t define its teaching on Purgatory till 1274 at the Council of Lyon. The idea of purgatory was of course floating around well before then, as is generally the case when the Church defines a teaching on something. But in the era before that when the Church hadn’t even defined its teaching on purgatory yet, the indulgence given by the Church wasn’t going to be focusing on reducing purgatory time or difficulty.

It’s not that the Church just woke up one day in the 11th century and said “Hey, let’s apply this indulgence idea to Purgatory” as it was that the doctrine on Purgatory was still evolving. Purgatory is basically the completion of penance (temporal punishment) for forgiven sins, after death. Indulgences were meant to remit or substitute for penance. As the idea of Purgatory became more developed, the idea of indulgences applying to Purgatory time (after-death penance) also developed.

If you want to talk about what the Eastern Orthodox believe about temporal punishment, it would be best to start a separate thread on that topic in the Non-Catholic Religions section as that’s a completely separate topic. As you noted, they don’t share the Catholic beliefs.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m trying to reconcile how this is possible in 1095, but for the 1095 year gap, there was no such practice of indulgences?

This is going to be a multi-post explanation. Indulgences–the remittance by a bishop of the need for a penitent to make satisfaction–have always been there. However, the logical consequences of this were drawn out over time. You have to really understand what satisfaction is, and then what an indulgence is in order to see them throughout history, since the formalities have varied over time and place.

First, it bears pointing out that there are three parts to repentance–contrition, confession, and bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (this last part is often called “satisfaction.”) It is the third part that is related to indulgences. Here are some biblical references to this last part (note: the DRV which I am citing uses the phrase “do penance” or the word “penance” in the place many translations use “repent” and “repentance” but the meaning is the same):

Acts 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.
(see also Matt. 3:8, Luke 3:8 )

Now, there are various ways by which one brings forth fruit worthy of repentance or, in other words, makes satisfaction for sins. This is done through prayer, acts of charity, and self-denial, etc but also suffering through the chastisments that God may send Himself.

Heb. 12:[5] And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. [6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? [10] And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. [11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

(2) continued from above…

The Church from the very beginning also prescribed such acts of satisfaction. One common one, early on, was cutting the sinner off from the sacraments for a period of time (this is still common in the East and for certain more serious sins in the West). St. Paul prescribes such satisfaction for the incestuous man in Corinth here:

1 Cor. 5:[3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Later, the Church adopted other forms of satisfaction in different times and places many taking months or even years to complete. For example, someone who committed a very grievous sin might have to live a strict disciplined life in a monastery for a period of time (this is why prisons are often called penitentiaries, from the root “penitent.”)

If someone were to die before bringing forth worthy fruits, that process was and is understood to be finished in the afterlife in what we call Purgatory. That’s what prayers and offerings for the dead helps remit and those have always been practiced.

An indulgence is a remittance of this need to make satisfaction either partially or fully (a "plenary indulgence) granted by the bishop by virtue of his power of binding and loosing. St. Paul granted such am indulgence to the same incestuous man in Corinth:

2 Cor. 2 :[6] To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many: [7] So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. [8] Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your charity towards him. [9] For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. [10] And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

This remitting of some or all of a prescribed satisfaction was common throughout the Church, in East and West. This shouldn’t be controversial. See the subsection “The power to grant indulgences” in this article for some specific examples in history from the early Church of these remittances being granted:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Anyway, since the need to make satisfaction extends into the afterlife, it followed logically that the indulgence would also. Otherwise, if one were loosed on earth, but it did not take effect in the afterlife, the indulgence would be a cruelty deceiving the penitent into thinking he had brought forth sufficient fruits when he had not.

In later times in the West, continuing until today, since prescribed penances are generally meant to simply turn the penitent back to God through prayer rather than equal the total fruits worthy of repentance, the focus of indulgences is more on their effects in the afterlife.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

(3) continued from above…

On a final note, it is from the communion Saints that indulgences have their efficacy. Since we are all one Body, the satisfaction made by some members can be applied by the bishop (representing the head of the body) to other members for whom it is wanting. St. Paul rejoices in this fact:

Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church: Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
(see also 1 Cor. 12:26).

Those Saints (canonized and unknown) along with Christ Himself who have brought forth fruits far exceeding their own needs for repentance are applied to the person receiving the indulgence–it is why an indulgence can be granted without derogating from God’s justice.

Anyway, I hope that helps!

 

[Vico]

A quick internet search reveals to me that they began in 1095 with Pope Urban II’s remittance of the crusaders sins for participation in the Crusades.

I’m trying to reconcile how this is possible in 1095, but for the 1095 year gap, there was no such practice of indulgences? How did they suddenly say, “right boys and girls, we are just going to interpret the concept of binding and loosing as meaning we can on the spot remit someones sins with an indulgence”.

There’s quite a large gap there, that has me confused a bit, and any help regarding this would be appreciated.

Indulgences do not remit sin but rather remit the temporal punishment due to the sins forgiven (through confession and absolution) as far as their guilt is concerned.