What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[TriuneUnity]

But since I think the legalistic approach to salvation which gave Luther his starting point was wrong in the first place, I think Luther’s cure was itself seriously flawed.

Edwin

We have to be careful, though, not to separate the legal aspect of the faith from the relational. There is the unchecked assumption that just because justification is legal in character therefore means that it is not relational. For some unknown reason, whether in the theology of nineteenth-century liberalism or the much earlier mystical ideas, for example, both think that the so-called legal and relational are incompatible. Yet, we must understand that there are such things as legal relationships. Or, in terms of our redemption, there are legal aspects of our relationship with God. For example, Paul tells us that we have received “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15; cf. Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). Here is a clear instance where we see the wedding of the so-called legal and relational categories-adoption is a legal term but is also bound with it is the idea of sonship, a relational term. However, rather than see adoption as legal and sonship as relational, we should understand that the legal and filial are both relational.

One finds the same concepts inseparably bound in the person and work of Christ. Jesus was at the same time God’s Son and born under the law (Gal. 4:4). Christ was obedient, not to an abstract arbitrary law, but to the personal and relational will, the law in its legal demands, of his heavenly Father (Phil. 2:5-11). That opposition between the two that developed within Christianity, and especially in liberalism, in itself rested on the rejection of original sin, divine wrath, and a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Not only are the legal and relational found together in the Bible, but even from common experience we know the two are compatible. Every day people enter the covenant of marriage and do so recognizing that the legal bond is one that is also relational. A husband, for example, can fulfill the legal requirements of marriage and do so out of love. In the same way, Christ fulfilled the legal-relational aspects of our redemption in love for us, his bride.

 

[Contarini]

I find it very strange and cold even that Protestants do not believe in the communion of saints.

I do not consider myself a Protestant doctrinally, but at any rate, I certainly believe in the communion of saints. My objection to indulgences is an objection to the idea of a transfer of merits, not to the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Edwin

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Is the idea of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins a transfer of merits?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think there’s a subtle difference between saying that Jesus bore the punishment of our sins (which, as you pointed out earlier, is explicitly stated in Isaiah 53, if we follow universal Christian tradition and the New Testament in applying Isaiah 53 to Jesus) and saying that Jesus was punished on our behalf. The difference is that the latter requires us to say that God somehow legally considered Jesus to be guilty when He was really innocent. That entire forensic approach to salvation is deeply flawed, in my opinion, and not supported by either Scripture or the teachings of the early Church.

I just don’t find that to be the case. If, as you said, Jesus bore the punishment for our sins, this directly implies that he bore said punishment so that we do not have to. Is that not correct? If he did carry that punishment so that we do not have to, how can it be viewed any other way than to say that he was punished in our place?

I do not find this in Scripture. This is one of several suggestions Christians have made to explain why the death of Jesus was necessary. As far as I’m concerned it’s an explanation that undercuts the very concept of forgiveness. It’s rather odd to say that your religion is distinguished by a belief in God’s forgiveness (as most Christians do) and then lay down as a basic premise that God cannot actually forgive anyone.

Scripture states numerous times that God will by no means acquit the guilty. God is, unlike human judges, perfectly just. If it would be unjust for a human judge to free a convicted man, how much more so would it be unjust for God to wink at sin? This is why the cross reconciles God’s love and God’s justice. God’s love is displayed in the cross in that the Second Person bore the punishment of the law so that we do not have to. It also shows God’s justice in that sin is still being punished - we’re just not the ones paying for it. This is what Paul means when he says “God is just and the justifier.”

This has the odd (and “inconvenient” in the medieval sense) consequence that when human beings forgive each other, we are demonstrating our human imperfection, since if we were perfectly just like God (in your view) we would be unable to do so unless an innocent person volunteered to bear the consequences of the offense.

Except that we are debtors to the law of God and are guilty ourselves. Therefore, we have no right to demand moral justice to be paid from anyone else. We have been pardoned and so should pardon others who are no more guilty than we. God is not in this position. He is neither a debtor nor has he been pardoned. That He arranged to redeem us from our sins is an act of pure, unmotivated mercy.

 

[Contarini]

Is the idea of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins a transfer of merits?

In the classical Protestant view, yes. This is the basic problem with much second-millennium Western theology. Transfer of merits is a bad idea, period. But if you are going to have a transfer of merits, the Protestant view is preferable–all the merits are transferred from Jesus to us and we can get on with loving our neighbor!

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

I do not consider myself a Protestant doctrinally, but at any rate, I certainly believe in the communion of saints. My objection to indulgences is an objection to the idea of a transfer of merits, not to the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Edwin

Just wondering, what do you mean when you say you’re not a Protestant doctrinally yet you identify yourself as an Episcopalian on your profile? Does it mean that you’re more on the Catholic or Anglo-Catholic side of the evangelical/catholic spectrum within your Communion?

 

[Victor_Claveau]

But if you are going to have a transfer of merits, the Protestant view is preferable–all the merits are transferred from Jesus to us and we can get on with loving our neighbor!

Edwin

This is my point. The fact that Jesus died for us does not automaticly make us worthy of heaven. We have to be Saints in order to obtain eternal life (Rev. 21:27). The merits of Christ are transferred to us through the power of the Keys. If all of Jesus’ merits are transferred to us, then what is our responsibility in regard to our salvation?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel:

It is difficult to respond to your reply point-by-point because you did not use the quote function properly. I will only ask you, for the purposes of settling my curiosity about it:

First of all you should be careful of how you define what apostolic church’s believe, because the terms you are throwing around here are too vague to generalize in this context.

If you are referencing the early Church Fathers and councils they have confirmed the biblical apostolic teaching of indulgences being practiced in the Church’s authority of binding and loosing. The word Indulgence of itself may not be visible, but the practice never the less is practiced (see Council of Ancyra 314 a.d, and St. Cyprian in his 18th Epistle who references St. Pauls teaching from Colossians which I provided for you above)

If you are claiming to a new Western Orthodoxy of late in schism with the Pope?, you do not speak for any of the Ancient Apostolic Church’s because these were all in full communion with the Pope.

Your question to compare the ministry of reconciliation to indulgence is the same as asking what is the difference between penance and confession? All of these are part of the Church’s authority of binding and loosing in the biblical ministry of confession. They are distinct in action (works) but all lead to the same waters of life in Christ Jesus. They cannot be practiced outside the sacramental life of the Catholic Church (body of Jesus Christ). This Apostolic ministry ordained by Jesus Christ himself, is for the children of God who remain culpable to venial and mortal sin through concupiscence.

There is much discipline and many different types of plenary and partial indulgences to generalize here.

In the Sacrament of confession one is absolved from confessed sin, forgiven with a penance. Why does the church give a penance for the penitent, after his/her confessed sin has been absolved? In answering this question truthfully we can move off the milk and begin to congest the meat of the Word of God from the sacramental of indulgences.

But I will conclude with a definition for you; An Indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to venial sin, and also to mortal sin, after the eternal punishment has been remitted.
For clarification here; sins are remitted by the sacraments of baptism and penance.

If the penitent or confessed sinner is properly disposed, the Church has the power and authority to forgive sin on earth. Yet a temporal punishment due to God’s justice is a temporary obstacle, and the Church has the power and authority to remove it.

Matthew 18:18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We have in scripture St. Paul granted an indulgence to the incentious Corinthian;

2Corinthians 2:5 **If anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure (not to exaggerate) to all of you.
6
This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person,
7
so that on the contrary you should forgive and encourage him instead, or else the person may be overwhelmed by excessive pain. **
8
Therefore, I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.
9
For this is why I wrote, to know your proven character, whether you were obedient in everything.
10
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. **For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, **

This is one of many ways we Catholics work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and although we are surely absolved from our confessed sins. We believe in God’s justice is perfect, so we offer plenary and or partial indulgences through the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter to remove in her binding and loosing ministry any temporal punishment that our sin may cause others and or ourselves. The indulgence is a biblical truth revealing how merciful, and gracious God is to his Children whom he loves. For a Father chastises his son whom he loves. Indulgence fight off the dark powers and principalities who accuse us before God demanding justice from our confessed and absolved sins that may plaque others in the body of Christ. This is to say that we can offer an indulgence for our selves and or others in the body of Christ both living and for those souls in purgatory, where the last penny will be paid.

Ecclesiastes; 12:13
7 The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man’s all;
14
**because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad. **

Matthew 12:36
25 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.
37
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe Gabriel will explain it better but this is my take. I don’t think anyone can fill the blank with certainty. It’s like asking what the result is if you pray for one hour a day, everyday for such and such a time span.

Not at all. I’m not asking “what will indulgences ‘get’ you?”, but what function do indulgences serve that is not served by confession. From what I’ve seen posted here, its function is essentially the same as confession. This is strange. It seems redundant to me, like “I absolve you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit…now go obtain an indulgence and be really forgiven.”

An extract from the link given (New Advent Encyclopedia):

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

I thought temporal punishment was fulfilled through penance? I don’t understand. Why is punishment still due AFTER confession, absolution, and penance? What is the basis of this idea?

• In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory

.

Regarding the underlined portion: Does this mean that indulgences only apply if you don’t preform the penance assigned to you during confession? Cos I was always told that you confess, you are given your penance, and you are absolved. That’s it, as far as the “mechanical” aspect of confession is concerned. Nobody ever told me “by the way, you’ll still ‘owe’ something even after you’re absolved.” Obviously if you do not preform your penance or if you are not sincerely contrite then you’re not taking confession seriously and you ought not believe that you have been truly absolved, but outside that sort of situation, why would there be some additional punishment that is not satisfied by the penance given to you in confession? Why is penance even a PART of confession for Catholics if essentially you’re still “owing” something after it? It removes the “guilt” of sin, but not “Divine Justice” as required by God? Sorry, but I am not very happy to hear of this distinction. I wouldn’t go to confession simply to make myself feel better. I would go because that’s how I was told to obtain forgiveness from God, who wipes out all inequities.

An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.

Why does penance as assigned as a part of confession not do this?

An indulgence is penance by another name. I mentioned this in another post. While penance has a wider scope like saying prayers and doing specific task assigned by the confessor, indulgence is more specific. The effect is the same – remission of temporal punishment except of course you are not going for confession and it is or it is not for any particular sins unlike in confession.

I must say, I don’t like this. It seems cheapen or weaken the power of confession. I really don’t mean to be rude, that’s just the impression that I’m getting. I’ve honestly never had anyone explain this doctrine to me, and it was not approached at all in RCIA, so this is the first time I’m hearing about how it’s supposed to work. I am really uncomfortable with it. So all those hours I spent in confession with my priest as a Catholic did not actually cleanse my soul? I was never forgiven by God? What a waste. I should never have become Catholic.

I guess the principle which is a point of contention among us who believe and those who don’t is that – no amount of confession of sin is enough; there is always the penance that one needs to do

No, no. I can understand and agree with this even while apparently really not believing in indulgences (and I guess purgatory? I dunno). Certainly one is never “done” confessing/doing penance because attachment to sin is so strong, and true repentance requires constant spiritual renewal/re-dedication . I just find this indulgences thing to have very disturbing implications that aren’t at all consistent with what I was told confession and repentance is all about in the Catholic Church.

Work can come in many forms and indulgence is one of them. This is how I understand it and it cannot be any easier than that.

Yes, that certainly is easy. Thank you.

 

[KathleenGee]

It also goes back at how pure your conversion was at penance. If you never sin again, there is no remission due…remission parallels our inclination to sin again…

Off the side I am thinking of the stages of faith, and the last one, the universal level, is the one most people in this life don’t achieve…and the people it did see as fitting that level — but only God knows where the soul really is, is Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

When you are asking on the traditions of the Catholic Church, you are looking at its universality throughout the world. What practice may be popular in one culture, isn’t in another. Same with certain saints.

I am a follower of St. Francis. One of the beginning excerpts he gives is on penance, how much we need to live it out every day, and also speaks about those Christians who do not do penance…

I would not look at the word, ‘works’ because either they are of sin or of Christ. We will be judged by how we loved Him in our neighbor.

As Gabriel12 said, there are so many types of indulgences within the framework of the universal church of the Latin rite, saying I recognize the Orthodox as the other lung. It is lifelong learning.

I think people are looking through filters, and how we live them out is in an entirely different perspective. …Sincere forms of asking God – with a pure heart and intention to be more Christlike – to request a lessening of remission in the next life, imploring Christ Himself, drawing on His merits from His life in the church and the saints who live through Him in heaven…it is about Jesus…but they are intercessing for us all the time. I would ask St. Francis to pray for me to help me be a better penitent, and would consider his prayers very strong and effective.

My older son was given the patronage of St. Joseph at his birth. His dad hasn’t been well. He got a job that he excelled in right away, and is now getting even more…it coming through on the eve of St. Joseph the Worker, and my son now really wanting to reform his life…after 14 years of his loved ones praying and suffering for him.

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Kathleen,
True, the Catholic Church teaches that in order for complete remission of sin during the Sacrament of Penance, there must be true repentence [A detestation of the sin(s) involved], a firm purpose of amending the sinful behavior, and the completion of a penance, which includes making restitution whenever possible.

We will be judged by how we love Him and our neighbor.

An indulgence is an indulgence, is an indulgence. It would be correct to say that indulgences are granted for a variety of reasons.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I must say, I don’t like this. It seems cheapen or weaken the power of confession. I really don’t mean to be rude, that’s just the impression that I’m getting. I’ve honestly never had anyone explain this doctrine to me, and it was not approached at all in RCIA, so this is the first time I’m hearing about how it’s supposed to work. I am really uncomfortable with it. So all those hours I spent in confession with my priest as a Catholic did not actually cleanse my soul? I was never forgiven by God? What a waste. I should never have become Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for your explanation. I see what you mean about Saul/Paul, but I do not understand how this directly ties to indulgences as individual “items” (for lack of a better term; individual credits? Something like that), given by the Church. Paul’s rectified behavior and new life and repentance seem to me to be all part of his sincere conversion and desire to live right by Christian standards of morality. I do not see anything in his behavior or new attitude that substantiate the doctrine of indulgence, just sincere repentance. That’s the entire point I’ve been trying to get at: I do not see how indulgences are necessary or helpful in a practically different way than confession and repentance itself. Rueben J makes the distinction between forgiveness of “guilt” attached to sin vs. remission of temporal punishment. I personally think that is a disastrous distinction to make, but I guess it might be necessary if you find yourself on the defensive regarding the doctrine of indulgences, as is likely to happen in the face of pointed questions.

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m just trying to be obstinate. I’m willing to accept the distinction offered by Rueben J as the one under which Catholics practice indulgences. I’m just a bit blown away that anyone (Catholics included) would consider such a distinction healthy to make. I am seriously depressed to think that, because I eventually sinned after confession (see Kathleen Gee’s post), my subsequent confessions and sincere attempts to reform myself were basically worthless because I didn’t know enough to get an indulgence. Frankly, I find that idea absolutely repulsive.

 

[Bluegoat]

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m just trying to be obstinate. I’m willing to accept the distinction offered by Rueben J as the one under which Catholics practice indulgences. I’m just a bit blown away that anyone (Catholics included) would consider such a distinction healthy to make. I am seriously depressed to think that, because I eventually sinned after confession (see Kathleen Gee’s post), my subsequent confessions and sincere attempts to reform myself were basically worthless because I didn’t know enough to get an indulgence. Frankly, I find that idea absolutely repulsive.

FWIW, I don’t think what KathleenGee said had much to do with actual Catholic theory/teaching on indulgences.

 

[TheosisM]

I am seriously depressed to think that, because I eventually sinned after confession (see Kathleen Gee’s post), my subsequent confessions and sincere attempts to reform myself were basically worthless because I didn’t know enough to get an indulgence. Frankly, I find that idea absolutely repulsive.

I am not necessarily defending indulgences (since I don’t practice it nor believe that they are necessary), however I hope I can provide some clarity on the issue from the Catholic perspective.

I am not sure how to understand the above quote. If one sins after confession, then they sinned. An indulgence doesn’t change that, nor does an indulgence change the eternal punishment for a sin, which is Hell. Whether or not one obtains an indulgence, the point is that the eternal punishment for sin is forgiven in Confession. If one obtains a plenary indulgence (which remits all temporal punishment up to that point) and then subsequently sins, they will still have to go to Confession, and still have to have the temporal punishment remitted (which, according to the teaching, can also be remitted in Purgatory). Indulgences do not forgive sins, and do not forgive the eternal punishment due for unconfessed mortal sins, Hell. The Catholic Church teaches that if one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell. If one dies without mortal sin, but still has temporal punishment, they go to Purgatory then Heaven. If one dies without mortal sin or temporal punishment (let’s say they received Confession and a plenary indulgence right before death), they go to Heaven.

So, indulgences do not do the same thing as Confession. Sins must be confessed before an indulgence can apply (since the indulgence presupposes that sins were already confessed and forgiven, and thus the eternal punishment has been remitted). Now, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the penance assigned after confession also remits temporal punishment. The difference, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is that penitential works “get their value from him who performs them”, while "an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church. ".

Perhaps you would find this article helpful:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[KathleenGee]

Bluegoat,

As people didn’t understand the doctrinal, I simply was sharing the experience of my life drawing on indulgences. People wanted to know what they were and how I did it.

My impression that night reading the references made by others caused me to decide not to quote from the catechism or doctrines. I did review the catechism before going down for the night. It rather surprised me the next day how we were all looking at the same sources but drawing different conclusions.

Indulgences are a special grace to call upon, that can include intercession of the saints who have nothing of their own but perfect union with Christ in heaven, and can be instruments to extend grace back to us…I enjoy being in ‘community’ with the saints as well as with the Lord.

So I decided to share how I practice. Best I could do.

But all comes from Christ Himself…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

Thanks for your explanation. I see what you mean about Saul/Paul, but I do not understand how this directly ties to indulgences as individual “items” (for lack of a better term; individual credits? Something like that), given by the Church. Paul’s rectified behavior and new life and repentance seem to me to be all part of his sincere conversion and desire to live right by Christian standards of morality. I do not see anything in his behavior or new attitude that substantiate the doctrine of indulgence, just sincere repentance. That’s the entire point I’ve been trying to get at: I do not see how indulgences are necessary or helpful in a practically different way than confession and repentance itself. Rueben J makes the distinction between forgiveness of “guilt” attached to sin vs. remission of temporal punishment. I personally think that is a disastrous distinction to make, but I guess it might be necessary if you find yourself on the defensive regarding the doctrine of indulgences, as is likely to happen in the face of pointed questions.

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m just trying to be obstinate. I’m willing to accept the distinction offered by Rueben J as the one under which Catholics practice indulgences. I’m just a bit blown away that anyone (Catholics included) would consider such a distinction healthy to make. I am seriously depressed to think that, because I eventually sinned after confession (see Kathleen Gee’s post), my subsequent confessions and sincere attempts to reform myself were basically worthless because I didn’t know enough to get an indulgence. Frankly, I find that idea absolutely repulsive.

I haven’t read the whole thread, so I’m not sure if someone already brought this up. From my Oriental perspective, indulgences are nothing more than quantum packets of Grace used to perfect the soul. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

dzheremi,

Sorry, didn’t mean to make you depressed…I was going through my own filter, ‘if you can say you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved’…or the other filter of Catholics who oppose Catholic teaching but receive communion, and this aspect of the reception of the sacraments too casually.

The Lord is ever merciful, I just focus on what is in front of me and do the best I can to, and call on the Lord as atonement for all my sins and defects, what I did or didn’t do, or omitted…so at Mass the idea as Christ as Atonement for our sins is what I draw on for these issues of mine, and not be introspectful or scrupulous.

Sorry!

We also have devotion to Divine Mercy that was promulgated by John Paul II just so many years back…Mercy Sunday is a great grace of remission, but it is all based on Christ’s mercy and that we simply need to trust in Him.

So in answer to my previous, that we are to trust in Him and His great love for us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for your explanation. I see what you mean about Saul/Paul, but I do not understand how this directly ties to indulgences as individual “items” (for lack of a better term; individual credits? Something like that), given by the Church. Paul’s rectified behavior and new life and repentance seem to me to be all part of his sincere conversion and desire to live right by Christian standards of morality. I do not see anything in his behavior or new attitude that substantiate the doctrine of indulgence, just sincere repentance. That’s the entire point I’ve been trying to get at: I do not see how indulgences are necessary or helpful in a practically different way than confession and repentance itself. Rueben J makes the distinction between forgiveness of “guilt” attached to sin vs. remission of temporal punishment. I personally think that is a disastrous distinction to make, but I guess it might be necessary if you find yourself on the defensive regarding the doctrine of indulgences, as is likely to happen in the face of pointed questions.

Your point is well taken. What needs to be expressed here is that the body of Jesus Christ has many members, but are united in one faith, one baptism in One Lord Jesus Christ. I say this because when one member of the body of Christ suffers, “we all suffer”, when one member celebrates, or rejoices, “we all rejoice”. There is no need to fret over your confessed sins, these are forgiven. In the communion of Saints as one body of believers in the body of Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth are praying and making intercession, making sacrifices, offerings, indulgences for you and me, because we are of the same body of Christ.

On a personal note, I offer indulgences for the temporal punishment due me, for the sake of those individuals who have been affected from my sin. So I offer up indulgences not only for myself, but they as well. I trust God’s Word that God has forgiven my confessed sins. So long as I have breathe, I will continue to offer up indulgences for myself, my past loved ones and for those of whom may have been affected from my sins. In other Words because God loves me a sinner and has forgiven me, I do not cease to love and forgive others. Indulgences is good practice to work out your salvation with fear and trembling for me, because from an indulgence I can offer up corporal sacrifices and spiritual sacrifices.

If one can see Jesus Christ in persona Christi as Paul teaches in scripture from his ministry and in the persons of the Apostles and their successors, it becomes easier to obey scripture and the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus calls all his disciples to this discipline of self sacrifice for others. Indulgence is an ancient practice still being practiced in the Catholic Church.

Temporal punishment is God’s justice that scripture demands “that every last penny will be paid” from confessed, forgiven sin in this world and in the next (purgatory) before we are released into heaven, because nothing unclean will go before God. These temporal punishments which God’s justice demands, can be removed from indulgences while on earth, or we must suffer loss in purgatory when and where these are burned off on our way into heaven. Purgatory will cleanse us of any temporal punishment due from our venial sin and forgiven confessed sin. Because no one enters purgatory with mortal sin.

We can offer an indulgence now, or pay later in purgatory in either case; God say’s every last penny will be paid.

I think if you remove any negativity you have been misinformed in regards to Peter’s Chair and the 2000 year old Catholic Church, just for a moment and consider what the Church teaches about “kenosis”, “Diakonate”, binding and loosing and what the Church truly teaches about purgatory. Indulgences will not be difficult to understand.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother dzheremi,

I haven’t read the whole thread, so I’m not sure if someone already brought this up. From my Oriental perspective, indulgences are nothing more than quantum packets of Grace used to perfect the soul. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

An interesting way to put it, Marduk…

Do you have any specific opinion as to the necessity of such things?