G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Please explain sans a link, trophy. Thanks.
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The article does not even address Isaiah 53, trophy. In your words, reconcile your statement with the following:
He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. - Isaiah 53:1-12
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Cor. 5:21
All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.’ …] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.’ - Gal. 3:10, 13
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. - 1 Pet. 2:24
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. - 1 Pet. 3:18
T
trophybearer
Guest
I just don’t see the point in me making a mess of what I know has been explained better than I’m able.
T
trophybearer
Guest
Maybe someday when I find myself with enough time. I have way too much real life to do today… my apologies.
C
cruisin
Guest
amen!!!
S
SSTeacher
Guest
The opening sentences that introduce the paragraphs headed “The treasury of the Church” within the article on Indulgences in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia are as follows.
Perplexedly,
Mick
Saint Paul was a lawyer yet even he didn’t write in this sort of vein. Does the above make sense to anybody? If it does, please talk me through it. And if it doesn’t make sense to you please post to say so in order that I may take some comfort from knowing that I’m not alone. :whacky:
Perplexedly,
Mick
C
Catholicnow
Guest
It makes absolutely no sense
D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t get it either, Mick – that passage or the overall doctrine on indulgences (one thing we actually did not touch at RCIA, that I can remember.
I can only fall back on the same thing I’ve written on other controversial points of uniquely RC doctrine: I don’t understand why it must be so.
I can only fall back on the same thing I’ve written on other controversial points of uniquely RC doctrine: I don’t understand why it must be so.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I’ll take a stab, anyone can please feel free to improve or correct.The opening sentences that introduce the paragraphs headed “The treasury of the Church” within the article on Indulgences in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia are as follows.
Saint Paul was a lawyer yet even he didn’t write in this sort of vein. Does the above make sense to anybody? If it does, please talk me through it. And if it doesn’t make sense to you please post to say so in order that I may take some comfort from knowing that I’m not alone. :whacky:
Perplexedly,
Mick
They are saying that sin is like a kind of negative currency, or that it incurres a fine. Since we all have sinned, we all owe God. But Christ through his death has banked enough currency to cover all of what we owe, he’s opened a bank account. And because of that, other people who are on the plus side because they paid their fines in excess, like the BVM and the saints, have also added to the account. They couldn’t have opened it on their own as they didn’t have the minimum deposit (I have no idea what this is really supposed to mean theologically.)
When we obtain an indulgence, we are getting a kind of bursary from this fund.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
You’re certainly not alone. Let’s pick apart…I mean, analyzeThe opening sentences that introduce the paragraphs headed “The treasury of the Church” within the article on Indulgences in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia are as follows.
Saint Paul was a lawyer yet even he didn’t write in this sort of vein. Does the above make sense to anybody? If it does, please talk me through it. And if it doesn’t make sense to you please post to say so in order that I may take some comfort from knowing that I’m not alone. :whacky:
Perplexedly,
Mick
the statement:While the statement that His satisfaction is infinite is certainly true, the first nonsensical term is that Christ’s perfect obedience to the law and His offering of Himself as a sacrifice to the Father’s wrath against sin is described as a “fund.” How can a once-for-all action on the part of Christ constitute some sort of investment account from which righteousness is drawn? The Scriptures never describe Christ’s life and passion in this way.
If Christ’s life and passion created an infinite, sufficient fund from which merit is drawn, then why would it be necessary for the saints and Mary to add to it, since it is infinite and sufficient? How can something be added to that which is infinite? It would like saying that you have an infinite ocean, and this drop of water is now going to make it bigger
Secondly, and this was raised earlier… if Christ’s merit is sufficient and infinite, one would have to ask why they had any temporal punishment to overcome to begin with.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I practice indulgences from time to time, and I believe in purgatory for those who believe in Jesus but at time of death, still hold on to desires to sin.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Quite frankly I read the link you provided, carefully and slowly, on post #20. That article didn’t explain the Orthodox disagreement with the Evangelical view of substitutionary atonment at all for me. It mostly just digressed about the different approaches to Biblical and traditional scholarship between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. It wandered and meandered all over.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hi Kathleen,
Just wondering what you thought about the language from the Catholic Church used to describe the “fund” and other banking-style terminology plus the overabundance of spiritual $$$ from the BVM and the saints in Triune’s post right before this post. What do you think of what they’re saying there?
Just wondering what you thought about the language from the Catholic Church used to describe the “fund” and other banking-style terminology plus the overabundance of spiritual $$$ from the BVM and the saints in Triune’s post right before this post. What do you think of what they’re saying there?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
In honor of the traditional put down that many Catholic apologists use to describe forensic justification as a legal fiction; Hencewith, I shall refer to indulgences and purgatory as a banking fiction.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Let’s just hope the Vatican doesn’t need a spiritual Obama bail-out! 
…at least GM paid it back LOL…I’m a Ford driver so we never took any bailout money! 
…at least GM paid it back LOL…I’m a Ford driver so we never took any bailout money!
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
LOL woot to Ford.Let’s just hope the Vatican doesn’t need a spiritual Obama bail-out!
Actually, come to think of it, that statement, though made in jest, has a good point behind it.
If the merits of the saints are not infinite, and are not sufficient, unlike Christ’s; what happens when the works of supererogation that they contributed to the thesaurus meritum runs out? In other words, what happens when the extra merit earned by, say St. Anthony, is spent due to prayers asking for his intercession? If they don’t run out, then how exactly is the merit that they earned different from Christ’s? It would have to be infinite, no?
C
Crumpy
Guest
It hasn’t been said in the encyclopedic article, but I see an analogy in the Old Testament.
There was a sacrificial system in which men had to bring animals for sacrifice, according to a scheme in the scripture itself, at atone for their sins. And, this was part of a purification that was required as they approached the tabernacle.
In the OT, the writing says that those sacrifices atone for sins, while later, e.g. in Hebrews, we read that the blood of animals could never atone for sins, and that they were simply a symbol, a foreshadowning of the effective sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
So, what was the point of it, except to get a man involved in the process of repenting from sins?
Although it is not explained that way in anything we’ve read about indulgences, that certainly is the effect, is to condition oneself for doing good works (for themselves) instead of doing evil.
It’s the old carrot and stick.
There’s plenty of “stick” in the bible about how we will be punished for our sins, and that none shall go unpunished. But, I’m sorry all you protestants out there, the NT says again and again that our good works will be stacked up to our credit.
And, Jesus teaches that when we give someone some water, that we are giving it to Him and doing it for Him. Water has the value described by the corporal works of mercy, in the first instance. In the larger sense, water has the symbolic value of the gospel itself, of bringing the gospel to those who need it as desparately as a parched man.
Indulgences have that “man made” quality to them, but I see a lot of good works encouraged in scripture. And, our Jewish brothers have a whole lot of commandments – “mitzvot” which they also traditionally interpret as “blessing” – because when they obey those commandments, it is a blessing to them.
In the big picture of things, there are also a lot of Jews who believe in the afterlife and in the process of purgation before they will be admitted to the presence of the Almighty – Baruch Ha-Shem – Blessed be the Name. They understand this from scripture, as much as Catholics do.
While both Jews and Catholics have long been viewed as superficial and legalistic, that overlooks the sincerity that underlies the mere form of the externals, even the writings, that protestants – what else? – protest against.
There was a sacrificial system in which men had to bring animals for sacrifice, according to a scheme in the scripture itself, at atone for their sins. And, this was part of a purification that was required as they approached the tabernacle.
In the OT, the writing says that those sacrifices atone for sins, while later, e.g. in Hebrews, we read that the blood of animals could never atone for sins, and that they were simply a symbol, a foreshadowning of the effective sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
So, what was the point of it, except to get a man involved in the process of repenting from sins?
Although it is not explained that way in anything we’ve read about indulgences, that certainly is the effect, is to condition oneself for doing good works (for themselves) instead of doing evil.
It’s the old carrot and stick.
There’s plenty of “stick” in the bible about how we will be punished for our sins, and that none shall go unpunished. But, I’m sorry all you protestants out there, the NT says again and again that our good works will be stacked up to our credit.
And, Jesus teaches that when we give someone some water, that we are giving it to Him and doing it for Him. Water has the value described by the corporal works of mercy, in the first instance. In the larger sense, water has the symbolic value of the gospel itself, of bringing the gospel to those who need it as desparately as a parched man.
Indulgences have that “man made” quality to them, but I see a lot of good works encouraged in scripture. And, our Jewish brothers have a whole lot of commandments – “mitzvot” which they also traditionally interpret as “blessing” – because when they obey those commandments, it is a blessing to them.
In the big picture of things, there are also a lot of Jews who believe in the afterlife and in the process of purgation before they will be admitted to the presence of the Almighty – Baruch Ha-Shem – Blessed be the Name. They understand this from scripture, as much as Catholics do.
While both Jews and Catholics have long been viewed as superficial and legalistic, that overlooks the sincerity that underlies the mere form of the externals, even the writings, that protestants – what else? – protest against.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
It might be interesting for someone to research whether this language began to dominate the Catholic view of indulgences during the time of the medici popes and their connections to european finance. The banking mindset might have passed from the secular into the religious realm.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Would you be able to give some examples of the areas wherein you practice Indulgences together with the benefit thereof?
Would it be correct to conclude that an average Catholic who sinned every day during his or her life but who did not take advantage of the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences would by close of play probably have accrued the equivalent of several centuries temporal punishment for which he or she would necessarily have to be purged?
Speculatively,
Mick
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hi Crumpy,
I agree with several of your points; my problem is that the actual “good works” that indulgences are often linked to don’t even really pass as good works IMO. Visiting a shrine? Going on a pilgrimage to view relics? Going to confession and going to Mass on certain days with a prayer to the pope accompanying it? Visiting a church parish that is named after a saint?
At least if indulgences were the real deal, one would think that they would have more meat, like I said in a recent post on this thread, feeding the homeless or visiting prisoners or praying with the elderly, volunteering in hospitals, making a difference. These indulgences are private and don’t have such a Christ-like ministry element to them. The Jesus I know from Scripture got appauled at mere ritual and going through motions without substance and love, charity for others involved.
And the idea of an overflowing account bothers me.
I agree with several of your points; my problem is that the actual “good works” that indulgences are often linked to don’t even really pass as good works IMO. Visiting a shrine? Going on a pilgrimage to view relics? Going to confession and going to Mass on certain days with a prayer to the pope accompanying it? Visiting a church parish that is named after a saint?
At least if indulgences were the real deal, one would think that they would have more meat, like I said in a recent post on this thread, feeding the homeless or visiting prisoners or praying with the elderly, volunteering in hospitals, making a difference. These indulgences are private and don’t have such a Christ-like ministry element to them. The Jesus I know from Scripture got appauled at mere ritual and going through motions without substance and love, charity for others involved.
And the idea of an overflowing account bothers me.
- Status