What are Plenary Indulgences really?

[Spirithound]

'Afternoon, y’all!

I’ve been contemplating a theory that admission to Heaven is reserved to those who love God perfectly. If two of the requirements to attain a plenary indulgence are confession and “total detachment from sins”, which I think can be restated as “loving God perfectly”, is a plenary indulgence actually a declaration of what already is, meaning no Purgatory time?

 

[diggerdomer]

'Afternoon, y’all!

I’ve been contemplating a theory that admission to Heaven is reserved to those who love God perfectly. If two of the requirements to attain a plenary indulgence are confession and “total detachment from sins”, which I think can be restated as “loving God perfectly”, is a plenary indulgence actually a declaration of what already is, meaning no Purgatory time?

See the Catechism para 1471 scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1471

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

'Afternoon, y’all!

I’ve been contemplating a theory that admission to Heaven is reserved to those who love God perfectly. If two of the requirements to attain a plenary indulgence are confession and “total detachment from sins”, which I think can be restated as “loving God perfectly”, is a plenary indulgence actually a declaration of what already is, meaning no Purgatory time?

Yes.

 

[Evan]

'Afternoon, y’all!

I’ve been contemplating a theory that admission to Heaven is reserved to those who love God perfectly. If two of the requirements to attain a plenary indulgence are confession and “total detachment from sins”, which I think can be restated as “loving God perfectly”, is a plenary indulgence actually a declaration of what already is, meaning no Purgatory time?

No.

Even if you have achieved “total detachment from sin” at a particular time in your life, you still have the effects of sins that you committed before the total detachment. The plenary indulgence removes these consequences. So there would be no Purgatory time after you had received the indulgence and before your next sin (should you fail to maintain perfect union with God).

Other requirements are: communion within a week (either before or after), praying for the intentions of the Pope.

 

[Spirithound]

No.

Even if you have achieved “total detachment from sin” at a particular time in your life, you still have the effects of sins that you committed before the total detachment.

I’m not sure that this is a definite. Isn’t it possible that a person’s accumulation of partial indulgences would purify the temporal effects of sin?

 

[Evan]

I’m not sure that this is a definite. Isn’t it possible that a person’s accumulation of partial indulgences would purify the temporal effects of sin?

Not only is that true, but one may suffer enough in this life without indulgences. To suffer death for the sake of the kingdom (martyr) would be an example of this.

 

[tjfitz]

I’d say, given the requirement of complete detachment from sin, that it is practically impossible for almost all persons (living Saints excepted) to actually get a Plenary Indulgence.

 

[PJM]

'Afternoon, y’all!

I’ve been contemplating a theory that admission to Heaven is reserved to those who love God perfectly. If two of the requirements to attain a plenary indulgence are confession and “total detachment from sins”, which I think can be restated as “loving God perfectly”, is a plenary indulgence actually a declaration of what already is, meaning no Purgatory time?

CCC 1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

CCC 1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence?

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.******

***From Catholic Encypodeia on Indulgences

"The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful.* From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. “at least with a contrite heart”, is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works – prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church, etc. – which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see “Raccolta”. **

Often “a prayer or a series of prayers for the Pope” will also be a condition for the Indulgence to take effect, in addition to the above. When an indulgence is offered, the requirements set forth must all be met.

Love and prayers,

 

[Bengoshi]

This is exactly what Dr. Martin Luther protested to! Look closely how indulgences are defined. Merits of Christ and the saints? Being fully God and fully human, it is only by the merits of Christ that we are saved and not of the saints (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Only the sacrifice of Christ was efficacious and not anyone else’s . This doctrine gives me goosebumps! I mean, I may have nothing against tradition but if it contradicts Scripture then it must be done away with.

Roman Catholics and Protestants have a lot of common doctrines than would most people think. It is only on those things (traditions) which are contrary to Scripture that we differ. In fact, in studying Church history, I personally recognize that the early Church was “Catholic” but not necessarily Roman. However, as time went by, incorrect doctrines were incorporated to it’s official teachings. One of them is this doctrine on indulgences. Other practices and doctrines even had pagan origins.

 

[PJM]

=Bengoshi-This is exactly what Dr. Martin Luther protested to! Look closely how indulgences are defined. Merits of Christ and the saints? Being fully God and fully human, it is only by the merits of Christ that we are saved and not of the saints (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Only the sacrifice of Christ was efficacious and not anyone else’s . This doctrine gives me goosebumps! I mean, I may have nothing against tradition but if it contradicts Scripture then it must be done away with.

***Your position is understandable for one outside the Church. But as in personal bible translation, it is evident you do not have a full and proper understanding of what is being said. What it actually means.

Notice the first line “That specifies through Christ.”* We Catholics have the same base and principle understanding that you claim. The fact that we add the “merits” of Saints has nothing to do with salvation coming through them. Rather it acknowledges that because they are in the very Presence of God they are ideally situated to add their own prayer request before the Throne of God to our personal pleas of mercy. It is only in this very specific sense that we can and do apply “the merits [taking advantage of their lofty status as being at the foot of the throne of God.”

Sacred Tradition cannot be contrary to what the bible says. IMPOSSIBLE. If it appears to do so, one needs to seek a fuller understanding.*

***As for Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis. I have read it, all though it’s a while back. I don’t recall anything in there about “the merits of Saints” rather it dealt, very correctly with the errant practice at the time of selling indulgences. This abhorrent practice has long ago been removed from Church PRACTICE.

This was a Practice, never a Doctrine, never a Dogma!***

Roman Catholics and Protestants have a lot of common doctrines than would most people think. It is only on those things (traditions) which are contrary to Scripture that we differ. In fact, in studying Church history, I personally recognize that the early Church was “Catholic” but not necessarily Roman. However, as time went by, incorrect doctrines were incorporated to its official teachings. One of them is this doctrine on indulgences. Other practices and doctrines even had pagan origins.**

***Again I point out that this was a “church practice” NEVER defined which is necessary for both official status of both Doctrine and Dogma. Being simply stated, even put into practice does not meet the criteria necessary to proclaim it as doctrine or dogma.

Truly this is a blemish on the CC. They should have known that one “May Never do an Evil act for a good intention.” In this case to build a New House of God. The Church teaches infallibly without error ONLY on Matter of Faith and or Morals. Nothing else. Clearly this is outside of those perimeters.***

Love and prayers,