What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[KathleenGee]

Granny, going back to Steven B…where is your source that Original Sin is not fully defined dogma…it would require Rome and union of the bishops…not just two theologians as Thomas and Augustine…

Because how I understand it, for a belief to be held as dogma it is in the jurisdiction of the Church – defined by the Holy Father and bishops.

 

[StillWondering]

This is how I teach my Catechism kids on indulgences if it’s any help. As kids, they come from vary different backgrounds, one is adopted, another has loving caring parents, another has a parent that is never around due to work, another has divorced parents, etc.

While they have various backgrounds, they understood what it means to be a child and have parents – something we often forget as we grow up and get lose in our own private lives. However, we are always our parents children and we are always God’s children.

So what happens when we in a fit of rage or selfishness call our mother a bad name? Well, the contrite child would apologized. And yes an apologize would mean much. But even more to heal your loving mother’s wound is to make an act of apology. A hug, a nice gesture like volunteering to help with the table. Coming back in a few minutes to say we really meant our apology. Many different things can help heal the wound much faster and bring us back into family communion then just an apology. This is what the penance after confession is all about.

So how does this relate to indulgences? Well think back to a time when family life is the very center of society. (Modern life, in general, has deviated form this important and central theme.) In a time when family is the most important thing on this earth, we share our family life with not just our mothers, but our fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins as well. So not only can we step up to mend the wound with a nice gesture, so can our fathers or brothers who step in to remind us to give our mother a hug. Or our father who says to his wife, dear, “Our boy is really sorry, right boy?” And we nod. While this doesn’t fix what happened, it does heal our mothers hearts after we have apologized and is forgiven. This is what indulgences are all about.

An indulgence is the mending of wounds cause by sins that have been forgiven.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, going back to Steven B…where is your source that Original Sin is not fully defined dogma…it would require Rome and union of the bishops…not just two theologians as Thomas and Augustine…

Because how I understand it, for a belief to be held as dogma it is in the jurisdiction of the Church – defined by the Holy Father and bishops.

Catholic dogmas are sacred beliefs contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Usually, they are formally developed or defined as dogma in Councils such as the Council of Trent. There is a great deal of study, guided by the Holy Spirit, which goes into defining a dogma. Scripture is consulted as are the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Saints, current Popes and theologians and so on. Tradition is also referred to as expressed in the history of the Church.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, currently contains Catholic teaching and is intended to serve as the basis for Catholic catechesis.
There is a post above listing Catechism references to Original Sin. I am not sure if this list contains the cross-references in the margins or the paragraphs devoted to Adam and human nature.

In any case, the Catechism is the source to use. My suggestion is to read the introductory material and how to tell what is supportive explanation. What is especially interesting is that there are plenty of footnotes. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are often referenced. St. Maximum the Confessor, Ambigua, serves as a reference along with St. John Damascene.

Original Sin is an obvious dogma because of it, Jesus Christ became incarnate.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[jimmy]

since EO admit that after the fall, man’s nature was so severely damaged he can’t go to heaven because of this fallen state, this says man is NOT a friend of God’s. Nor would God directly take His human nature from someone in this fallen state.

That’s why God took care of His mother 1st, in anticipation of His life death and resurrection.

Now that is one of the major problems with the western concept of OS. It is our nature in all its fallenness that Christ assumed. You have turned God’s creation into an evil. You argue that OS is a loss of Sanctifying Grace and then argue that “God wouldn’t take His human nature from someone in this fallen state.” Essentially you have said that human nature is naturally evil, unless it has a superadded Grace. So God created man evil and then gave him a superadded Grace to make him good (logically not chronologically).

What would you say that Christ recieved from Mary that makes him consubstantial with us? Would he be consubstantial with us if God formed his body and soul in heaven and then it descended to earth? How about if there was a planet in some other galexy that had humans on it that were created by God completely seperate from the humans on this planet, would it be enough that he would have been made human on that planet deriving his humanity from someone on that planet? Would he still be consubstantial with us? Say that the fall didn’t happen until the generation of Cain and Abel. Assume that there are two lines; one that sinned and one that remained in communion with God. Would it be enough for God to assume the humanity of the line that didn’t fall? It seems that the essence of the incarnation is that God recieve his human nature from the very same people who had fallen.

The very concept of the Incarnation is that God did recieve the fallen nature as His own. To tell the truth, you sound like a Eutychian monophysite. Eutyches said that the human nature of Christ was descended from heaven. He was neither consubstantial with us nor with God. In reality it was the very nature of Adam that was passed down through Seth and to all men. All men fell in Adam, and all were saved in Christ. Christ took the fallen nature of man and healed it.

The Byzantines don’t even speak of the fall in relation to heaven. They speak of it in relation to deification and death. The fall caused death and the loss of deification. It didn’t condemn man to eternal hell, and there is no reference to the loss of heaven. Heaven isn’t even an issue at the time of Adam. They do not say that fallen man ‘is not a friend of God’s’. That is specifically a western statement. After all, Moses was a friend of God’s and spoke to Him face to face.

yes but how do they defend it?

They have no problem defending it because they have no tendency to fatalism as the west does. Read my posts above; they should contain all that is necessary to explain this issue. Read the book by Bulgakov that I linked to. You can read large parts of it online.

I have to admit that my last post may have been a little misrepresentative of the western view of Grace. I hadn’t considered prevenient Grace.

 

[Bluegoat]

Now that is one of the major problems with the western concept of OS. It is our nature in all its fallenness that Christ assumed. You have turned God’s creation into an evil. You argue that OS is a loss of Sanctifying Grace and then argue that “God wouldn’t take His human nature from someone in this fallen state.” Essentially you have said that human nature is naturally evil, unless it has a superadded Grace. So God created man evil and then gave him a superadded Grace to make him good (logically not chronologically).

What would you say that Christ recieved from Mary that makes him consubstantial with us? Would he be consubstantial with us if God formed his body and soul in heaven and then it descended to earth? How about if there was a planet in some other galexy that had humans on it that were created by God completely seperate from the humans on this planet, would it be enough that he would have been made human on that planet deriving his humanity from someone on that planet? Would he still be consubstantial with us? Say that the fall didn’t happen until the generation of Cain and Abel. Assume that there are two lines; one that sinned and one that remained in communion with God. Would it be enough for God to assume the humanity of the line that didn’t fall? It seems that the essence of the incarnation is that God recieve his human nature from the very same people who had fallen.

The very concept of the Incarnation is that God did recieve the fallen nature as His own. To tell the truth, you sound like a Eutychian monophysite. Eutyches said that the human nature of Christ was descended from heaven. He was neither consubstantial with us nor with God. In reality it was the very nature of Adam that was passed down through Seth and to all men. All men fell in Adam, and all were saved in Christ. Christ took the fallen nature of man and healed it.

The Byzantines don’t even speak of the fall in relation to heaven. They speak of it in relation to deification and death. The fall caused death and the loss of deification. It didn’t condemn man to eternal hell, and there is no reference to the loss of heaven. Heaven isn’t even an issue at the time of Adam. They do not say that fallen man ‘is not a friend of God’s’. That is specifically a western statement. After all, Moses was a friend of God’s and spoke to Him face to face.

They have no problem defending it because they have no tendency to fatalism as the west does. Read my posts above; they should contain all that is necessary to explain this issue. Read the book by Bulgakov that I linked to. You can read large parts of it online.

As you describe it here, it seems like the Western view is rather neoplatonic.

 

[grannymh]

Start where you feel comfortable. The Catechism is a fine starting point.

Paragraph 1471 of the Catechism states:
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has been already been forgiven…”

The reason there are difficulties with the plenary indulgence was summed up in post 43. “How can a person not have ANY attachment to venial sin?” This is an indication of the lost teaching regarding Original Sin and human nature.

Furthermore, the concept of retribution as a means of reconciliation has been dropped from the concept of sin. Therefore the truth of temporal punishment which does act as a means of cleansing has been lost. Part of this may be due to the lack of understanding Christ’s mission of salvation – John 3:16 and the carrying out of Christ’s mission through the Catholic Church founded by the
Son of God – John 3: 17.

In my humble opinion, attacks on the reality of Adam and Eve, i.e., calling them symbols of some kind of truth, has knocked out a lot of common sense regarding the human nature of Adam and the reason for the atonement for sin, both the contractual sin of Adam and humans’ personal sins. Both eternal atonement and temporal atonement must also be understood.

For those interested in getting back to the basic Catholic teaching regarding the two sole parents of the human species and how sin started, I suggest the universal
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, (CCC) Please begin with paragraph 355 which contains my all-time favorite Catechism word – friendship. “God established him in His friendship.”

This “friendship” means that only man is able to know and love His Creator. How is this done? God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Thus, Adam is called to share by knowledge and love in God’s own life.

In human nature, God unites the spiritual and material. The spiritual soul is the source of the intellect and will needed in order to be in friendship with the Supreme Spiritual Being. Man is called to a covenant with His Creator, to offer Him a response of faith and love.

CCC 396 repeats the essential point. “God created man in His image and established him in His friendship.” Adam could only do this in free submission to God. The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis symbolically points to the limits that being the created, man must freely recognize and respect with trust. Always, Adam is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the norms governing the use of freedom.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and sin **is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Catholic teachings regarding Indulgences are in Paragraphs 1471-1498. See also cross-references in margins.

 

[grannymh]

It is dogma that human nature is fallen, but there are various explanations of OS. The eastern Catholics take a different approach than the western Catholics.

Is the difference in explanation or in the results?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Granny, I know that there are Early Church Fathers in the beginning of the development of dogma in the Church whose teachings could stand their ground and were accepted by the authority in Rome and the communion of bishops – who represent all faithful believers in the One, True Lord.

I am seeking the reference from Steve B that states Original Sin and the works of Thomas and Augustine are not completely defined dogma…because there is possibly a movement that will create a bridge of understanding on this entire issue that will help resolve the fracture between the Latin and Orthodox churches…that is what I am seeking.

Thanks again and comply with all your directives!

 

[jimmy]

As you describe it here, it seems like the Western view is rather neoplatonic.

When I was writing that Origen occured to me as a possibility instead of Eutyches. From what I have heard of Origens theology he believed that in the beginning there were many logoi in communion with God. Upon the fall many (not all) of these logoi fell and became human (some fell even further). The Incarnation for him is that God took one of the logoi that was not fallen and assumed it to himself and took a human body. There seems to be some serious problems with this.

It seems that you are right. It is as if there is this idealized human type in heaven. It isn’t the humanity that is here on earth, but it is the ideal. This is very similar to platonism.

And I don’t think that the west has to fall into this view. Thomas Weinandy wrote a book called In the Likeness of Sinfull Flesh that defends that Christ took the fallen humanity as his own. The author is a western Catholic priest.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jimmy,

Early Christians believed heaven was here on earth through living in communion with Jesus Christ and His kingdom…there was an early church father…read a passage from my Breviary…that Christ came to us to give us His divinity and we came to Him to give Him our humanity…St. Catherine of Siena speaks of this in ‘Mystical Church’ in her dialogues…

We have our personal experiences of the Lord within and knowing His presence of peace that transcends all evil in this world.

 

[jimmy]

Is the difference in explanation or in the results?

It is natural that different explanations are going to lead in different directions. The western distinction between theology and spirituality leads them to speculate on theology in a different way than in the east. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is just different. That is why there is a Byzantine, a Maronite, a Latin, and other traditions.

There are times when there is a lot of tention between the traditions. Sometimes it may need to be solved and sometimes the differences can coexist.

I might be critical of the west at times, but I am only trying to learn. I am not trying to be offensive to anyone. I am sorry if I have been offensive in any way to you.

 

[grannymh]

This is how I teach my Catechism kids on indulgences if it’s any help. As kids, they come from vary different backgrounds, one is adopted, another has loving caring parents, another has a parent that is never around due to work, another has divorced parents, etc.

While they have various backgrounds, they understood what it means to be a child and have parents – something we often forget as we grow up and get lose in our own private lives. However, we are always our parents children and we are always God’s children.

So what happens when we in a fit of rage or selfishness call our mother a bad name? Well, the contrite child would apologized. And yes an apologize would mean much. But even more to heal your loving mother’s wound is to make an act of apology. A hug, a nice gesture like volunteering to help with the table. Coming back in a few minutes to say we really meant our apology. Many different things can help heal the wound much faster and bring us back into family communion then just an apology. This is what the penance after confession is all about.

So how does this relate to indulgences? Well think back to a time when family life is the very center of society. (Modern life, in general, has deviated form this important and central theme.) In a time when family is the most important thing on this earth, we share our family life with not just our mothers, but our fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins as well. So not only can we step up to mend the wound with a nice gesture, so can our fathers or brothers who step in to remind us to give our mother a hug. Or our father who says to his wife, dear, “Our boy is really sorry, right boy?” And we nod. While this doesn’t fix what happened, it does heal our mothers hearts after we have apologized and is forgiven. This is what indulgences are all about.

An indulgence is the mending of wounds cause by sins that have been forgiven.

Pardon me, mending of wounds would be considered an act of reconciliation. It is a nice example but a nice gesture is a tad sugar coated when one considers the meaning of sin against the Supreme Spiritual Being.

Just curious.

Have you considered the original relationship of indulgence to the term “sack cloth and ashes”? In the ancient church, penance was real without the added sugar.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,

Early Christians believed heaven was here on earth through living in communion with Jesus Christ and His kingdom…there was an early church father…read a passage from my Breviary…that Christ came to us to give us His divinity and we came to Him to give Him our humanity…St. Catherine of Siena speaks of this in ‘Mystical Church’ in her dialogues…

We have our personal experiences of the Lord within and knowing His presence of peace that transcends all evil in this world.

I don’t want to challenge your faith or anyone elses. I just want to balance out the western view with the eastern view. It seems at times that the western view is assumed to be the official view, and anything else is heresy.

Your quote is common to many of the Church Fathers. Sts. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril, Maximus and many others used the phrase ‘God became man so that man might become God’ or some derivation of it.

 

[grannymh]

It is natural that different explanations are going to lead in different directions. The western distinction between theology and spirituality leads them to speculate on theology in a different way than in the east. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is just different. That is why there is a Byzantine, a Maronite, a Latin, and other traditions.

There are times when there is a lot of tention between the traditions. Sometimes it may need to be solved and sometimes the differences can coexist.

I might be critical of the west at times, but I am only trying to learn. I am not trying to be offensive to anyone. I am sorry if I have been offensive in any way to you.

Let me rephrase my question. What is the Maronite explanation of Original Sin and what are the results of the Original Sin? How does the universal *Catechism *explanation of Original Sin differ from the eastern explanation as found in such and such a source? My guess is that the actual result of the Maronite concept of Original Sin and the western concept of Original Sin is essentially the same. I also guess that the concept of temporal punishment which is another term for cleansing is also the same. How close are my guesses?

So far, no one has been offensive to me. And believe me, I know “offensive” from other threads.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Bluegoat]

Let me rephrase my question. What is the Maronite explanation of Original Sin and what are the results of the Original Sin? How does the universal *Catechism *explanation of Original Sin differ from the eastern explanation as found in such and such a source? My guess is that the actual result of the Maronite concept of Original Sin and the western concept of Original Sin is essentially the same. I also guess that the concept of temporal punishment which is another term for cleansing is also the same. How close are my guesses?

So far, no one has been offensive to me. And believe me, I know “offensive” from other threads.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Well, they tend to lead to different views on the atonement, different views on the death of the unbaptized, and in the Eastern view the Immaculate Conception is unnecessary. The latter is mostly important because it is such a stumbling block for people of other faiths.

 

[jimmy]

Let me rephrase my question. What is the Maronite explanation of Original Sin and what are the results of the Original Sin? How does the universal *Catechism *explanation of Original Sin differ from the eastern explanation as found in such and such a source? My guess is that the actual result of the Maronite concept of Original Sin and the western concept of Original Sin is essentially the same. I also guess that the concept of temporal punishment which is another term for cleansing is also the same. How close are my guesses?

So far, no one has been offensive to me. And believe me, I know “offensive” from other threads.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

The Maronites follow Syriac tradition historically. There is no concept of temporal punishment as far as I can tell. They tend to be more like the Byzantines or EO in a lot of ways and in some ways they are more like the Latins. For example they would never possit a difference between the human nature of Christ and that of us. Christ took our nature as it is. In this way they are more like the EO. But in other ways they may be more like the Latins. I have actually never seen an in depth explanation of OS from a Syriac or Maronite perspective. The most in depth perspectives have been either Latin or Byzantine. My perception is that the Maronite view of OS is closer to that of the Byzantines.

 

[Contarini]

The IC dogma hadn’t been formally defined yet though the IC was already believed at the time of Aquinas.

Right, but Aquinas didn’t believe in it.

The point being suggested is, Aquinas would believe the IC as the Church defined it. Period dot end of sentence.

I think one would have to be able to read his mind. Determining what a dead thinker would have thought about an argument that hadn’t been formulated yet is simply impossible. Sure, one can guess, but I don’t see your source even making a reasonable argument based on what we know of Aquinas’s theology. He simply declared that Aquinas would have found this argument satisfactory, because as a Roman Catholic he desperately needs this to be true.

Until dogma is formally defined, one is not guilty of denying it.

“Guilt” isn’t the point. We all agree that by the standards of your Church Aquinas was no heretic. He didn’t deny a dogma–he denied a theory which later became a dogma. But deny it he certainly did.

All it means in this case is, in the absence of a defined dogma, he was free to reject different propositions. And Aquinas rejected certain propositions

Exactly.

Therefore, After the IC dogma was formaly defined, Aquinas would have been on board with the CC definition and the dogma…

No doubt (assuming that he didn’t conclude that the Pope had become a heretic, which I think Aquinas would have considered possible–but I doubt he would have made such a determination based only on this point).

Re: Original sin and Augustine’s view, vs the EO view, I’m not sure what your driving at.

The Orthodox do not believe in “original sin” properly so called, so they have no problem saying that Our Lady was sinless while also saying that she came into the world suffering from the effects of the Fall.

the Catholic view of OS is

A: the original sin of Adam and Eve is passed down through the generations, but original sin is not the actual fault of the recipient. Rather, its effect is the privation of grace and the loss of original innocence that our first parents had.

You don’t give a source for this. The source appears to be This Rock, and the position described is, if I’m not mistaken, one possible interpretation of the Catholic view. Of course, the question is, “what do we mean by privation of grace and loss of innocence”? I think the Orthodox would say that this is still looking at the matter in too juridical a way. But I need to study this more.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, what is your undestanding of the Orthodox view of OS? What is your view of Bulgakov’s explanation in this book? He criticises the western seperation of Grace and nature (Grace is a superadded gift) and argues that Grace is inherent to human nature and is responsible for his freedom. With the sin of Adam man was cut off from the divine life, but there is kind of a residual grace that makes it possible to avoid sin and to worship God. This is evidenced by the sacrifices of the OT as witnessed by Abel, Melchizidek and others. If a man approaches God, God will give him Grace that will act from the outside (as opposed to from within as it would have if Adam avoided sin) so to speak. So the prophets and John the baptist and Mary above all achieved a holiness that was impossible for man alone, but they still didn’t recieve the effects of the death and resurrection of Christ until later.

Do you think this view fits well within that of Maximus?

Jimmy,

I need to think about this more. Thanks for pointing me to Bulgakov–I’ve read a little of his work, but not enough. Of course he’s controversial and not necessarily representative of Orthodox thought, but certainly interesting. . . . .

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

Now that is one of the major problems with the western concept of OS. It is our nature in all its fallenness that Christ assumed. You have turned God’s creation into an evil. You argue that OS is a loss of Sanctifying Grace and then argue that “God wouldn’t take His human nature from someone in this fallen state.” Essentially you have said that human nature is naturally evil, unless it has a superadded Grace. So God created man evil and then gave him a superadded Grace to make him good (logically not chronologically).

Jimmy, do you believe that God created human nature good or evil?
I don’t want to go into the Incarnation. I want to stick with the creation of Adam and then what happened to his human nature which is transmitted to us.

The Catholic Church does not teach that human nature is naturally evil. I believe it was Calvin who thought that. Human nature was wounded, not destroyed, by Original Sin. The seriousness of Adam scorning His Creator had serious consequences for all his human descendents. But God never abandoned man. In the garden, God promises a Redeemer.

From the OP, do you believe in purgatory? If you believe in any kind of purgatory than I can describe what an indulgence is in relation to either cleansing, punishing, or purifying.

Would it be better or clearer, if I used the term Latin Church?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, do you believe that God created human nature good or evil?
I don’t want to go into the Incarnation. I want to stick with the creation of Adam and then what happened to his human nature which is transmitted to us.

The Catholic Church does not teach that human nature is naturally evil. I believe it was Calvin who thought that. Human nature was wounded, not destroyed, by Original Sin. The seriousness of Adam scorning His Creator had serious consequences for all his human descendents. But God never abandoned man. In the garden, God promises a Redeemer.

From the OP, do you believe in purgatory? If you believe in any kind of purgatory than I can describe what an indulgence is in relation to either cleansing, punishing, or purifying.

Would it be better or clearer, if I used the term Latin Church?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Yes I believe God created human nature good.

I believe in purgatory in the sense that I believe that those who die are purified or deified or saved through the prayers of those on earth.

I am fine with you using Catholic, I realize what you mean.