What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[cruisin]

cruisin;6627033:

You have been following this thread, and remain secluded in a corner for fear to drink from the scriptures. I pray you come out of your defense posture in a corner against indulgences and listen to the reasonable Gospel. I thought this was a discussion thread not the defend your faith thread you sound more in defense mode than I am.

Let’s simplify for you. Indulgence begins with the biblical understanding of what is venial sin and what is mortal sin. Do you know the difference between a deadly sin and a non deadly sin? here is a scripture that lays your false claim of indulgences as you say “on it’s face”?

1John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
so please define for me what is that deadly sin. describe and define it. you keep talking about it . but do you really know what that sin is?
Do you understand the biblical teaching between a (mortal sin) deadly sin and a (venial) non deadly sin? Let me know if you need more clarification so as to graduate this topic to the biblical ministry of reconciliation regarding indulgences. hmmm… let see… God told Adam he would die from eating a piece of fruit. Tell me which is it Mortal or venial?

Do you believe a punishment is due to both types of sin? When you grasp this biblical teaching you will come to understand how wonderful indulgences can be for you and me. How does God give life to someone when someone else prayed for his non deadly sin? Grasping this Truth, your false inclinations of indulgences begin to fall apart, if you have ears to hear.

Punishment is due for all sin. have you not read what is written, If you break one of these laws you have broken them all. So tell me which law is the worst and and is the least important

I didn’t take offense by your comment, I count it all a blessing thank you. But if you had an evil intention, I forgive you no harm done.

I don’t think your that old to have live and witnessed Martin Luther’s German Catholics extorting monies from Catholic parishoners in their abuse against indulgences. What you falsely claim here does not take place in any Catholic parish in communion with the Pope today.

so I must be a liar. Did the magisterium stop being human somewhere between the time of Martin Luther and today? I have learned along time ago that just because rules are placed on paper some where, there are those who will stretch those rules as far as they will go. just take a look at the politcal climate in todays world.

 

[cruisin]

you obviously dont get it…

i dont know why anyone said “forgotten sin” ?? assuming anyone actually did…

Technically, it is WE who do not forget our sins… it is WE who are riddled w/ guilty and… negativity because of our sins… the consequences thereof… i dont know why people have a hard time distinguishing between forgiveness and purification… You can forgive your son for wallowing in the mud w/ the pigs… but that doesn’t mean you want him near you at a wedding celebration…

but you will probably argue w/ this…

…I can see it now…you are holding your nose… introducing your son to everyone… “Look, everyone, this is my son…Isn’t he beautiful and wonderful? i know u can’t recognize him under all that hog ****… and i know he smells absolutely horrible… but hey, he’s my son…I embrace him even though i will get hog *** all over me… but please welcome him and embrace him also… into this celebration…”

No I would help him clean up and make sure he was ready for the celebration.

 

[cruisin]

Originally Posted by distracted View Post
you obviously dont get it…

i dont know why anyone said “forgotten sin” ?? assuming anyone actually did…

Technically, it is WE who do not forget our sins… it is WE who are riddled w/ guilty and… negativity because of our sins… the consequences thereof… i dont know why people have a hard time distinguishing between forgiveness and purification… You can forgive your son for wallowing in the mud w/ the pigs… but that doesn’t mean you want him near you at a wedding celebration…

but you will probably argue w/ this…

…I can see it now…you are holding your nose… introducing your son to everyone… “Look, everyone, this is my son…Isn’t he beautiful and wonderful? i know u can’t recognize him under all that hog ****… and i know he smells absolutely horrible… but hey, he’s my son…I embrace him even though i will get hog *** all over me… but please welcome him and embrace him also… into this celebration…”

No I would help him clean up and make sure he was ready for the celebration.

To God we are disgusting because of our sin. but are clean because of what He did on the cross. Taking away that which makes us unpure and purifies us from all unrighteousness.

so tell me from the following verses. who makes us clean(pure)

1jo 1:5 This is the word which came to us from him and which we give to you, that God is light and in him there is nothing dark.
1jo 1:6 If we say we are joined to him, and are walking still in the dark, our words are false and our acts are untrue:
1jo 1:7 But if we are walking in the light, as he is in the light, we are all united with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son makes us clean from all sin.
1jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are false to ourselves and there is nothing true in us.
1jo 1:9 If we say openly that we have done wrong, he is upright and true to his word, giving us forgiveness of sins and making us clean from all evil.

who is upright and true to his word giving us forgivemess. Praise God for Jesus!

 

[KathleenGee]

I shared on another post this issue on ‘works’.

You can go to any Christian church, Catholic or Protestant, and see many people therein doing the same type of good works.

As one person responded, when a Catholic lives out their faith, then factions accuse us of ‘works’.

Again, it is all revolving around drawing deeper on the life of Christ. The corruption of the clergy does not in any way affect the efficacy of the sacraments. But we are instructed most strongly to pray for our priests and many Catholics haven’t.

And there were many famous saints helping many lay people and clergy in the times prior to the Reformation, so you can’t paint the whole church in sin in those times.

 

[distracted]

No I would help him clean up and make sure he was ready for the celebration.

now you get Purgatory

 

[distracted]

:

Not so much the church as the hierarchy-the church is the bride in the narrative.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

its only because you are not Catholic that you make this distinction… There would be no Church w/o a hierarchy… wich started w/ the 12 Apostles… (wel, technically it started w/ Christ… and one could even say it started w/ the Snyagogue… the Levites, etc…)

in any case…

---

Who in her right mind would marry someone without having met the relatives??? ***

not just a rhetorical question…

this again shows Protestantism…

Those who are not raised Catholic dont understand…

and a lot of the ones i talk(ed) to… get when they hear(d) that what they always thought of as Catholicism is not true Catholicism… Tehy should get mad @ the way they were… lied to by non-Catholics (knowingly or o/wise) but instead a lot of them get @ Catholics and the Church… just hope you’re not one of them…

The analogy just sounds so… chock full of ignrnace as concerns true Catholicism…

being ignorant is not a bad thng… I am ignorant of many things… Not wanting to admit ignorance is something else… just my perspective based on my personal observations in life but seems to me that a lot of non-C’s just dont want to admit they were wrong to believe this or that about theChurch…

i dont get that…

it seems like… that would be like me not wanting to admit i dont know anything about quantum physics…

(my brain doesn’t even recognize math or science, to speak of…:whacky:)

 

[distracted]

No I would help him clean up and make sure he was ready for the celebration.

 

[KathleenGee]

Conversion is a way of life we choose, and those who persevere to the end will be saved.

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Thanks for taking the time to read my profile and condemn me, Victor. It’s mind-boggling that you can sit here and imply I have forfeit my salvation and my Saviour. I will not return reply to any more of your posts or discuss theology or faith with you if you’re going to park yourself on a pedestal and judge me. You are in no place to and have no right to judge my heart and my desire for God or my walk with Him. I would never do that to you. Kindly put me on ignore rather than speak to me like this. It’s out of bounds.
See…works do lead to boasting…Paul was right!

I neither condemned you nor judged you. I only stated Church teaching. A Catholic is someone who believes everything the Church teaches.
You might consider changing your profile to describe yourself as a “cafeteria Catholic” or “Left-wing Catholic”, or even “Part Catholic”. Catholicism is a little like pregnancy. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. A person can not be a little bit Catholic, you are either Catholic or not.

 

[cruisin]

cruisin;6635041:

well I thought

you were getting Purgatory… with that 1st sentence…but then…

in that one psg it says

---

and the blood of Jesus his Son makes us clean from all sin. ***

it does not say “has made us clean…” Purification is a process… and How can a person get totally clean when he may not even (usually doesn’t) SEE how dirty he is? I myself dont see how dirty i am from sin (& even others’ sins affect me also… causing my mind and heart to be impure… ) until i am in the Real Presence of Christ which is only in the Catholic Chruch (His tangible, actual Presence… which is far mor than just some good feeling a person gets being around other believers, which i am NOT saying is bad… or not of Christ… but there is far mor to Jesus than tht)

In a way you are half right… When we are filld w/ the Spirit we are in Christ and we are cleansd… but the damage of sin…

well, when we r first filled w/ the spirit… we are clean and probably ready for Heaven… ***but most people live beyond that expeirence… they dont just die when they are filled w/ the spirit and go straight to Heaven ***
and in so doing (living beyond that…) they collect a lot of … impurity…

thus the need for Purgatory…

1jo 1:5 This is the word which came to us from him and which we give to you, that God is light and in him there is nothing dark.
1jo 1:6 If we say we are joined to him, and are walking still in the dark, our words are false and our acts are untrue:
1jo 1:7 But if we are walking in the light, as he is in the light, we are all united with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son makes us clean from all sin.

you totally missed the point John is trying to make here. He is not speaking in past tense when he speaks of the blood of Christ. He is speaking present tense to the reader. when he says the blood of Jesus he is refering to the cross. If we follow verse 7 the blood of Jesus continues to cover our sin. it is when we say we are a christian and continue sinning, Christ blood has done nothing for us.

John is calling us to a Higher calling. As long as we understand that we have sin and that we need Christ we are purified by his blood. When we deny sin we deny the need for a Savior.

When we do sin, all we have to do is ask for forgiveness and we are forgiven. The psalmist right, that he remembers our sin no more.

Paul understood that well when he wrote, the things I don’t want to do I do and the things I want to do I don’t, what am I suppose to do, praise be to God for the Blood of Christ and the Cross.

What does the blood of Christ do after we are baptized?

The word Makes is a continuation, but not of the works of Man but the work of the Cross.

there is no mention of a place beyond death here. He is speaking of this world and our time in it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Victor, you ought to be ashamed of yourself commenting on me personally. I resent it. You are in no place to sit here and evaluate how Catholic I am. You are good at labelling and doing as Paul says, boasting in works. You’re very proud of yourself for toeing the line. You follow a bunch of teachings of the catechism and feel so proud on a pedestal sitting in the seat of evaluation and pontificating at me. Truly I find it outrageous. I am not going to call myself a cafeteria Catholic anymore than you should call yourself any insulting term I could recommend to you. I don’t care what you call yourself. I wanted to laugh out loud when you called me liberal. You REALLY don’t know me if you think me to be liberal. Your arguments in this forum have been very poor. They never utilize Scripture, ever. They’re all based on Matthew 16:18 and some Tim Staples. I have received several IMs from members telling me that they thought it was outrageous how you’ve sought to label me, insult me, and categorize me because we disagree instead of having a grownup, mature, facts-based exchange. I try to make it a point in here to argue, debate, discuss without getting personal or telling a person where they should take their pipe and smoke it. I tell my students that when a kid on the playground resorts to name calling he’s lost the argument or isn’t intelligent enough to deal with you anymore. Those are my sixth graders…

Please don’t speak to me further or kindly put this now-judged/labelled-by-Victor on IGNORE. I’d appreciate it. Then there’s option B: actually make your cases without the same tired cliches or facts off of an apologetics quarterback playbook. Show up to debate or lay off.

I neither condemned you nor judged you. I only stated Church teaching. A Catholic is someone who believes everything the Church teaches.
You might consider changing your profile to describe yourself as a “cafeteria Catholic” or “Left-wing Catholic”, or even “Part Catholic”. Catholicism is a little like pregnancy. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. A person can not be a little bit Catholic, you are either Catholic or not.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I neither condemned you nor judged you. I only stated Church teaching. A Catholic is someone who believes everything the Church teaches.

Except, of course, that Catholics 300 years ago would not be required to believe at least three dogmas that they are now required to believe. Does that mean they were less Catholic than now?

You might consider changing your profile to describe yourself as a “cafeteria Catholic” or “Left-wing Catholic”, or even “Part Catholic”. Catholicism is a little like pregnancy. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. A person can not be a little bit Catholic, you are either Catholic or not.

Left wing? Gurney is one of the most conservative posters here on orthodox Christian doctrine. Call him non-Roman Catholic if you wish, but left wing? That’s absurd, considering you haven’t interacted with him enough to know anything that he holds to.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Much-appreciated, Triune. It’s amazing how one can be anti-abortion to the max, opposed to gay marriage, anti-female ordination, pro-Eucharist 100% and a believer in the Real Presence, opposed to pre-marital sex, a believer in the Sacrifice of the Mass, a big fan of Mary, a believer that Mary was Immaculate and Assumed, someone who values confession, and yet disagree with some other issues and be in a state of struggling with some theological matters and you’re instantly branded a scumbag liberal traitor. Amazing how that works…labels and blasting venom is never the right approach to trying to keep someone Catholic. The “you’re not Catholic enough” litmus rubric is in full force with a few folks in here but most are pretty charitable and kind. As the old saying goes, it takes all kinds…

Except, of course, that Catholics 300 years ago would not be required to believe at least three dogmas that they are now required to believe. Does that mean they were less Catholic than now?

Left wing? Gurney is one of the most conservative posters here on orthodox Christian doctrine. Call him non-Roman Catholic if you wish, but left wing? That’s absurd, considering you haven’t interacted with him enough to know anything that he holds to.

 

[GKC]

Except, of course, that Catholics 300 years ago would not be required to believe at least three dogmas that they are now required to believe. Does that mean they were less Catholic than now?

Left wing? Gurney is one of the most conservative posters here on orthodox Christian doctrine. Call him non-Roman Catholic if you wish, but left wing? That’s absurd, considering you haven’t interacted with him enough to know anything that he holds to.

I concur.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

God bless, Jim, thanks. And I like Tolkien and Marvel Comics as well as Star Trek, too!

I concur.

GKC

 

[Non_Serviam]

:

its only because you are not Catholic that you make this distinction… There would be no Church w/o a hierarchy… wich started w/ the 12 Apostles… (wel, technically it started w/ Christ… and one could even say it started w/ the Snyagogue… the Levites, etc…)

And it’s only because you are Catholic that you say “technically”

in any case…

---

Who in her right mind would marry someone without having met the relatives??? ***

not just a rhetorical question…

this again shows Protestantism…

Those who are not raised Catholic dont understand…

That’s fine as far as it goes. But to be honest, most presentations of the Catholic faith to non-Catholics downplay certain beliefs-indulgences being one of them, yet to become Catholic, you are expected to accept the truth of the entire Catholic faith. It’s a bit of special pleading to hide a crazy uncle in the basement during the dinner with the family and then accuse the fiancée of not having torn the house apart to look for other relatives, isn’t it?

and a lot of the ones i talk(ed) to… get when they hear(d) that what they always thought of as Catholicism is not true Catholicism… Tehy should get mad @ the way they were… lied to by non-Catholics (knowingly or o/wise) but instead a lot of them get @ Catholics and the Church… just hope you’re not one of them…

The analogy just sounds so… chock full of ignrnace as concerns true Catholicism…

I’ve based the analogy on what I’ve read in this thread from Catholics and the links that have been given to official documents-to be honest I didn’t concern myself much with indulgences before this thread, but reading how the church claims to have its hand on the spigot of the grace of Christ, this belief has quickly become one of my key problems with Catholicism.

That’s why I posted the analogy-based on what I’ve heard and read from Catholics, this is the undertanding I’ve developed-if it’s incorrect, dont simply say show, but show me something from an official source that can correct it.

being ignorant is not a bad thng… I am ignorant of many things… Not wanting to admit ignorance is something else… just my perspective based on my personal observations in life but seems to me that a lot of non-C’s just dont want to admit they were wrong to believe this or that about theChurch…

i dont get that…

it seems like… that would be like me not wanting to admit i dont know anything about quantum physics…

(my brain doesn’t even recognize math or science, to speak of…:whacky:)

Again, that’s the reason I posted it-if have misunderstood, how can someone help to correct that misunderstand until they know what understanding I’ve come to?

A key problem is that there seems to be some dispute between Catholics as to whether Purgatory and indulgences are meant to deal with temporal punishment or continuing affection for sin.

Temporal punishment in our current existance I can understand-I get drunk, start a fire, burn myself and remain burned. Makes sense. Fornication leads to an STD. Makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that there is some"alternate" temporal punishment that awaits in purgatory that been accruing. If it is something different than the examples I’ve given, then it is no longer simply the consequences of my sin as many Catholics explain it. This does appear to contradict God’s assurances of forgiveness and restoration in Scripture.

OTOH if it is ongoing affection for sin, and the Grace of Christ is what will remove that affection, then the idea that the church has it stored up in a treasury and dolls it out in dribs and drabs for good behaviour is a terrible as the idea of a nurse at a boarding school during a pneumonia outbreak handing out antibiotics to the children who get their spelling lessons right. Witholding the cure while telling the sick that their sickness is the reason they can’t have the cure is beyond words.

It is like the father of the Prodigal Son telling the servants to cancel the fatted calf and to give his son two bouillon cubes a day if he does his chores. It is not the extravagant Grace of Christ, but the miserly grace of Scrooge and Marley.

That’s my problem with the doctrine. If there’s something the church has written that shows I’ve misinterpreted the idea of the “treasury” and the “merits” it contains, please point me toward it.

 

[GKC]

God bless, Jim, thanks. And I like Tolkien and Marvel Comics as well as Star Trek, too!

Yeah, but there’s that DUNE thingy.

GKC

 

[WatchingMedia]

I have no objections to anything taught within the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
If you are not Catholic, why do you care? Those who are Catholics are Catholic because it is their choice.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Yeah, but there’s that DUNE thingy.

GKC

His religion listing is showing some development of doctrine!

 

[Victor_Claveau]

I grasp indulgences…and summarily reject them!

A Catholic believes:
that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed;
that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error.

Dogma is the valid teaching of the Church. If a baptized person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Canon 751) and automatically becomes subject to punishment of excommunication.

A Catholic must admit that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men (Can 752).
The Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops (Can 753).

That the Church possesses the power to grant indulgences is an article of faith and as such must be believed by all Catholics.

To reject a revealed truth is to cease to be Catholic.