What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Along with your question I’d supplement this quandry I have—how is an indulgence involved in purgation? The idea of purgatory is a place where sins are purged. We are told that it is painful and unpleasant. In other words, I have lustful thoughts that I can’t shake despite being forgiven for a sexual sin, pretend, and I die with this state of lust in my heart even though I was forgiven in the confessional with sincerity. When I die, purging is steadily taking away that lustful part of myself, and that would be painful, theoretically, because it’s so ingrained in my psyche. How is praying some simple prayers, visiting a parish with a saints name, or praying a certain litany going to pre-purge anything so I get less time in purgatory? Indulgences don’t have a purgational quality to me yet in Catholic dogma they’re closely tied to purgatory in a process.

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

 

[SSTeacher]

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.

Have you ever received an Indulgence? If so, was it a Partial Indulgence or a Plenary Indulgence?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Another facet of indulgences I have issues with is the idea of a plenary indulgence. The main requirement to get a plenary indulgence is that one must have NO attachment to even VENIAL SIN!??

This smacks of Pelagianism to me. How can a person not have ANY attachment to venial sin? No attachment to venial sin would seem to make a person god-like, wouldn’t it? I can’t imagine anyone I’ve ever met, known, or seen who has NO attachment to ANY venial sins at all? How?

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.

I don’t know of any section of the apostolic writings that would concur with the idea that the animal sacrifices were a means of teaching the Israelites repentance. There are a number of ways God have done so without involving the methodology that He did. The sacrifices, as you said, foreshadowed Christ. They served the purpose of moving redemptive history forward and as a sign of the Messiah. Nothing more. Hebrews explains this a lot more in depth than simply saying they couldn’t forgive sins.

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.

The Scriptures do speak of rewards in heaven for the good we do here on earth. Protestants don’t dispute this. Works earning time off of satispassio for temporal punishment in a state never described in Scripture called purgatory, that the especially holy contribute to others time out of purgatory, and then selling those extra merits… that’s a completely different ballgame altogether.

 

[SSTeacher]

Another facet of indulgences I have issues with is the idea of a plenary indulgence. The main requirement to get a plenary indulgence is that one must have NO attachment to even VENIAL SIN!??

This smacks of Pelagianism to me. How can a person not have ANY attachment to venial sin? No attachment to venial sin would seem to make a person god-like, wouldn’t it? I can’t imagine anyone I’ve ever met, known, or seen who has NO attachment to ANY venial sins at all? How?

Have you ever read this article on Catholic Answers?

How to Get an Indulgence

In 1967, Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina, which established new norms for the use of indulgences. This document introduced the classification of indulgences as partial or plenary – a simplification of an earlier system of reckoning how many “days” of penance an indulgence represented that led some to suppose that an indulgence represented getting a certain number of days “off” their time in purgatory.

Partial indulgence: Granted by the Church to “the faithful who at least with a contrite heart perform an action to which a partial indulgence is attached.” These individuals “obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church” (ID, norm 5).

Plenary indulgence: “It is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the supreme pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent” (norm 7).

The conditions may be performed “several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work” (norm 8). The document also established that a single confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences. Praying for the pope’s intentions can be satisfied by saying a prayer of one’s own choosing, but it is also fulfilled by saying an Our Father and a Hail Mary (norm 10). “All attachment to sin, even venial sin” means a complete exclusion of sin by the action of the will. It does not mean the elimination of all temptation or concupiscence from one’s soul for, as Pope Paul notes, “all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins” (ID 3). There is a limit of a single plenary indulgence per day, except in case of death (norm 6).

A special plenary indulgence is granted for the dying. This is normally included in the last rites, but in the event a priest is not present, the Church grants a plenary indulgence to the faithful “at the point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime” (norm 18).

Both partial and plenary indulgences can be applied either to oneself or to the departed by way of prayer (norm 3).

The Church’s official book of indulgences is known as the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, or the Handbook of Indulgences. The Apostolic Penitentiary also periodically announces indulgences for special occasions, such as World Youth Day, the World Day of the Sick, and anniversaries of Vatican II.

Indulgences listed in the Enchiridion include prayers, the reading of Scripture, and eucharistic adoration.

I’m not sure that it helps much. What do you think?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Non_Serviam]

Have you ever read this article on Catholic Answers?

I’m not sure that it helps much. What do you think?

Cordially,
Mick

I think we have a case of moving definitions here-some Catholics are trying to say that the purpose of Purgatory is to remove the affection for sin, and yet, to gain a plenary indulgence and avoid purgatory, affection for sin must already be gone. But if it were already gone, there would be no affection for which the plenary indulgence would be needed.

If the Catholic goes back and instead says the indulgence removes temporal punishment, then we’ve returned to the idea of Purgatory as punishment, as well as to the idea that there is some aspect of sin for which Christ’s sacrifice is ineffective.

Either way, something’s not kosher in the state of Denmark.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think we have a case of moving definitions here-some Catholics are trying to say that the purpose of Purgatory is to remove the affection for sin, and yet, to gain a plenary indulgence and avoid purgatory, affection for sin must already be gone. But if it were already gone, there would be no affection for which the plenary indulgence would be needed.

If the Catholic goes back and instead says the indulgence removes temporal punishment, then we’ve returned to the idea of Purgatory as punishment, as well as to the idea that there is some aspect of sin for which Christ’s sacrifice is ineffective.

Either way, something’s not kosher in the state of Denmark.

Awesome points, Non.

 

[KathleenGee]

Any more comments ???

For the next 14 hours, consider this…not everything of the Lord is in the Bible, but like the Jewish people, there are practices of the Christian, universal church, that meaning Catholic.

You have read many people repeat Christ’s words, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Jesus said His comforter would come to teach them many things…that they would do much more than He…

Our pastor told us yesterday at Mass that Jesus is more physically present today than He was 2,000 years ago…He resides in the tabernacles throughout the world, He resides in the Eucharist, He resides in the communicants who carry Him within their souls…

So from this reality, do you think we are about to pay our way into heaven???

If you do not believe that the Lord consecrated and anointed His ministers in Spirit and Truth, that He has given them the power to forgive sins through His power, to consecrate ordinary bread and wine–the symbols of the work of our hands – to be united to Jesus as the only pleasing sacrifice to the Father for the remission of sins, and from that, know the meaning of personal sacrifice the devout carry with their daily cross, or the Daily Sacrifice, it is going to be hard to explain much of anything else.

It is going to be hell trying to explain anything if you don’t get the above.

I practice indulgences.

Again, don’t you think a person would be rather relunctant to offer anything personal considering three plus pages of such and such…and you are our guests here at CAF?

You will not hear of my practices.

You have 12 hours to get it all out…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m a little fuzzy with the whole 12 and 14 hours thing, Kathleen?

I will say this, that you are not presenting a cogent Catholic argument as to why indulgences are laudable, Christian, or have any relevence to our salvation. Your argument is that the Catholic Church says you should do them so you do them and thus everyone else should do the same. Even Tim Staples and the gang would agree that that doesn’t work with Protestants and Orthodox. They want a logical, hopefully Biblical but at least historically and theologically-relevent, insightful reason to do so. Matthew 16 can’t apologize away all dogma. It plays a part in the Catholic ethos but only to a point.

And also Triune has made very strong arguments about how the Pauline statements fly in the face of a merit/satisfaction system from a Biblical standpoint. The Catholic Church teaches that Tradition is up there with the Bible but that tradition cannot contradict the Bible. If you can prove that indulgences compliment Pauline theology, then you’ll win converts and hearts I think. I guess I have 11 hours left LOL…

Finally, I don’t understand this comment of yours here in bold, can you explain it differently to me?

**Again, don’t you think a person would be rather relunctant to offer anything personal considering three plus pages of such and such…and you are our guests here at CAF? **

God Bless!

Any more comments ???

For the next 14 hours, consider this…not everything of the Lord is in the Bible, but like the Jewish people, there are practices of the Christian, universal church, that meaning Catholic.

You have read many people repeat Christ’s words, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Jesus said His comforter would come to teach them many things…that they would do much more than He…

Our pastor told us yesterday at Mass that Jesus is more physically present today than He was 2,000 years ago…He resides in the tabernacles throughout the world, He resides in the Eucharist, He resides in the communicants who carry Him within their souls…

So from this reality, do you think we are about to pay our way into heaven???

If you do not believe that the Lord consecrated and anointed His ministers in Spirit and Truth, that He has given them the power to forgive sins through His power, to consecrate ordinary bread and wine–the symbols of the work of our hands – to be united to Jesus as the only pleasing sacrifice to the Father for the remission of sins, and from that, know the meaning of personal sacrifice the devout carry with their daily cross, or the Daily Sacrifice, it is going to be hard to explain much of anything else.

It is going to be hell trying to explain anything if you don’t get the above.

I practice indulgences.

Again, don’t you think a person would be rather relunctant to offer anything personal considering three plus pages of such and such…and you are our guests here at CAF?

You will not hear of my practices.

You have 12 hours to get it all out…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have read that article indeed. Thanks, Mick. It also says all the things I have said. Plenary indulgences are only obtained by folks completely 100% free of any attachment to venial sins. I still do not understand how that is humanly possible, even for Mother Teresa types?

Have you ever read this article on Catholic Answers?

I’m not sure that it helps much. What do you think?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[KathleenGee]

Keep going…

I am getting ready for bed.

Back tomorrow.

And Guerney…where do you live??? Is that place of yours a joke?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Kathleen

It absolutely is fictional. Arrakis is a planet in the “Dune” sci-fi series by Frank Herbert, a brilliant author from the 60’s, 70’s and some of the 80’s. Arrakis is the planet Dune. I am in a place, however, that can resemble another planet…California! We have plenty of aliens here

Keep going…

I am getting ready for bed.

Back tomorrow.

And Guerney…where do you live??? Is that place of yours a joke?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hi Kathleen,

I’m not sure I understand your last post. You posted on the 3rd page of the thread after a number of people had expressed their difficulties with the concept of indulgences as presented in Catholic teaching.

You were asked this question, but never responded:

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?

It is this concept of indulgences as part of a spiritual accounting system that seems to be the most troublesome for the majority of posters. We think of Scripture speaking of Jesus dying for the whole world, His infinite merit available to redeem all who accept, and the two seem not just different, but contradictory.

If the quotes we’ve posted aren’t representative of the majority of church teaching on the subject, please tell us, and feel free to post others.

But for us to smile and nod to everything claimed by the Catholic church isn’t beneficial, especially given the stated mission of these fora.

I’m sorry if these attacks have felt personal, I can state in my case they aren’t, we’re simply stating our problems with the belief and hoping that someone might provide an explanation.

I hope this helps to clarify things.

 

[dvdjs]

If the quotes we’ve posted aren’t representative of the majority of church teaching on the subject, please tell us, and feel free to post others.

But for us to smile and nod to everything claimed by the Catholic church isn’t beneficial, especially given the stated mission of these fora.

I’m sorry if these attacks have felt personal, I can state in my case they aren’t, we’re simply stating our problems with the belief and hoping that someone might provide an explanation.

Actually, the OP did not request explanations, but sought company on misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. Such company was found; and many posters had a nice time encouraging each other. Now this thread is filled with misstatements and misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. If you sincerely want explanations, please start a new thread rather than hijacking this sorry one.

 

[Crumpy]

Since this thread is such a romp through the woods, I have to ask my protesting friends if they have ever read the epistle of James in the New Testament?

They’re foaming at the mouth, again, about a “works” gospel, but my Bible says that faith without words IS DEAD.

DEAD? DEADLY? Got it?

As usual, the protestors jump the train off the tracks because they haven’t read that, if anything, FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.

“Works” must be important for some reason. I wonder what it is? NOT so that any man can boast, that’s for certain, for the NT says that, too.

OK, I’ll draw a line in the sand, too, and ask anybody what are good works FOR? if anything? MUST BE BIG, if it’s in the NT? NO? You’ve got 12 to 14 hours for that, too.

AGAIN, I ask that lifelong question of mine, WHICH PAGES OF THE BIBLE AM I SUPPOSED TO TEAR OUT, NOW? AND WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TELL ME TO DO IT?

 

[dvdjs]

Since this thread is such a romp through the woods, I have to ask my protesting friends if they have ever read the epistle of James in the New Testament?

Or the full article from the Catholic Encyclopedia? or the whole of Psalm 103? Nah… too attached to romping.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Actually, the OP did not request explanations, but sought company on misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. Such company was found; and many posters had a nice time encouraging each other. Now this thread is filled with misstatements and misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. If you sincerely want explanations, please start a new thread rather than hijacking this sorry one.

That’s true-the OP didn’t ask for explanations-my bad for almost taking the thread off topic. I’ll stop.

Since this thread is such a romp through the woods, I have to ask my protesting friends if they have ever read the epistle of James in the New Testament?

They’re foaming at the mouth, again, about a “works” gospel, but my Bible says that faith without words IS DEAD.

DEAD? DEADLY? Got it?

As usual, the protestors jump the train off the tracks because they haven’t read that, if anything, FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.

“Works” must be important for some reason. I wonder what it is? NOT so that any man can boast, that’s for certain, for the NT says that, too.

OK, I’ll draw a line in the sand, too, and ask anybody what are good works FOR? if anything? MUST BE BIG, if it’s in the NT? NO? You’ve got 12 to 14 hours for that, too.

AGAIN, I ask that lifelong question of mine, WHICH PAGES OF THE BIBLE AM I SUPPOSED TO TEAR OUT, NOW? AND WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TELL ME TO DO IT?

But just before I stop-could you please point out where anyone attempted to disprove James, or said that works were not something we would do as believers? The main points raised were that the idea of a treasury of merits was unbiblical and that individuals could produce a surplus of good works to add to said “treasury”.

Feel free to start a thread showing where James teaches such a treasury of merits exists or that our works add to it for the spiritual benefit of others…or you should probably take your straw man (or straw person to be more pc) home.

 

[dzheremi]

I believe that faith without works is dead, dvdjs. Why does this mean that indulgences and purgatory are necessary concepts that I must assent to in order to fully live the Christian faith? As with so many things, I see how they can be argued for, but not why they’re necessary in the same way that, for instance, belief in the tenets expressed in the Nicene Creed is necessary. They do not seem self-evident or illuminating. In fact, things like the passage Mick posted earlier (in “legaleese”) are just downright confusing and frustrating.

 

[cheese_sdc]

That man can know the mind of the Divinity, specifically, that man can know that doing XYZ or saying this prayer will satisfy the supposed anger of the Divine.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t mean to offend you, but I was hoping to get an answer from someone who endorses the doctrine and doesn’t worship a sandwich topping.