What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[Steven_John]

What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

a) That it isn’t in the Bible?
b) That it renders confession of sins pointless?
c) That it assumes there’s a place called purgatory?
d) That it portrays God as some sort of celestial Shylock?
e) That it effectively turned Western Christianity into a religion of works?
f) Other?

Curiously,
Mick

I live in a world with too much sin and The Church is veiled by it, so i guess i have no objection to indulgences but on the last day the buyer and seller wont be standing before me as Our Fathers authority for judgement is given to another.

a) people are very creative with bible translation and interpretation surely some one can conjure up substantiation.
b) Those selling and buying must believe it exists
c) It only portrays the buyer and sellers god or view of Our G-d
d) Least where i live, the new way of thinking IMO seems to be G-d is always forgiving regardless of what we do.

May Our Father who is most merciful show mercy on any heart with good intention to glorify Him even if the action is in error.

Blessings to you and yours Brother Michael.

 

[KathleenGee]

Marduk,

Good analogy…and the packets are helps…not earnings…can I say forms of prayer petitions?

kathleen

 

[Victor_Claveau]

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.

Please keep in mind that one cannot gain an indulgence for another living person, only for self and the poor souls in Purgatory.

 

[Contarini]

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?

I reject the idea that “evangelical” and “Catholic” are two ends of a spectrum. Or perhaps I should say: I reject the idea that they ought to be. I understand evangelicalism in its roots as a certain kind of piety (“Pietism”) which developed within Protestantism (partly on the basis of the influence of late medieval Catholic mysticism) in reaction to an undue stress on doctrine and an overly cerebral understanding of justification by faith in Protestant orthodoxy. I find this same kind of piety in medieval and early-sixteenth-century Catholicism (the Catholic Cardinal whose name I use as an alias was a good example), and I think there is no reason why it should not find a home within Catholicism (as Scott Hahn and many of the folks associated with EWTN and Catholic Answers are demonstrating today).

So as an Anglican I claim to be Catholic in my basic doctrinal commitments, by which I mean that I essentially accept the doctrinal heritage of the first millennium before the division of East and West. For the sake of clarity, I should say that there are a few tensions and possible exceptions to this claim. I can think of three:

1. I struggle with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, I would not dream of rejecting it categorically–the authority of Sacred Tradition is too great.
2. I believe that the doctrinal claims of historic Catholicism, when interpreted apart from the traditional belief that females are imperfect males, not only allow but even mandate the ordination of women. However, again I submit myself to the judgment of the Universal Church. I accept the ordination of women within Anglicanism as a fait accompli and agree with it theologically, but I would have opposed our “going it alone” had my opinion been asked–again precisely because of my respect for Catholic Tradition.
3. I think that the Protestant doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” needs to be taken seriously by the Universal Church. By this I understand not that there is no ministerial priesthood, but that I question whether the ministerial priesthood is as radically distinct from the universal priesthood as Catholic Tradition seems to hold. This interacts with point 2, since I think one implication of the universal priesthood is that any baptized person may validly be ordained, although of course there are many baptized people whom it would be unwise and/or improper to ordain. Another practical implication is that I am unwilling to say categorically that Eucharistic validity is dependent on apostolic succession, and I am willing to receive communion in Protestant churches that lack apostolic succession (although I would only join such a church if there was no church in the neighborhood possessing apostolic succession).

I apologize for sidetracking the thread by all of this–if someone wants to respond we should probably start a new thread. But these are the points where my Catholicism could be questioned. Apart from these points, and the obvious fact that I don’t believe any one Communion as presently constituted simply is the Catholic Church, I accept all the doctrines taught in common by Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

At the same time, I would also claim to be a Wesleyan theologically, but only insofar as Wesleyan theology can be seen as a particular theological stream within the historic Catholic Faith.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

(On the side here…if you are referring to St. Thomas Aquinas as the source who stated women being imperfect and thus not able to be ordained…what he said was women have defective genes, and he did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Like you, he did not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (If Jesus was able to pass through the wall before His ascension to meet with the Apostles, that is an analogy we can possibly draw on that at His birth, Jesus passed through His mother to her arms.)

So you don’t draw on the ‘opinions’ of some church people, even if they are saints. St. Thomas’ works far exceeded some off base remarks…St. Augustine was into some rather strange group that practiced birth control…he held on to the belief…don’t know how long after his conversion, that to determine if a woman was pregnant with a son or female, to have something attached to a string and put it above the woman and let it swing back and forth and if…then it is a boy, and if not, it is a girl. Such nonsense from a great theologian.

The sacrament of Holy Orders and the ‘sacrament’ of the Church was instituted at the Last Supper. Women have different functions in the church and if somebody sees them as inferior then they are not in the Spirit of Christ and the Church.)

 

[Victor_Claveau]

(On the side here…if you are referring to St. Thomas Aquinas as the source who stated women being imperfect and thus not able to be ordained…what he said was women have defective genes, and he did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Like you, he did not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (If Jesus was able to pass through the wall before His ascension to meet with the Apostles, that is an analogy we can possibly draw on that at His birth, Jesus passed through His mother to her arms.)

Aquinas on the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady

On virginitas in partu:

   "On the contrary, In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III, Cap. ix) it is said: After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin: but grace enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood, while in no way does it injure her virginity. Therefore Christ's Mother was a virgin also in giving birth to Him.

   "I answer that, Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the Mother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says not only: Behold a virgin shall conceive, but adds: and shall bear a son. This indeed was befitting for three reasons. First, because this was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in question, for He is the Word of God. For the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption, but also proceeds from the mind without corruption. Wherefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very Word of God, it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin incorrupt. Whence in the sermon of the Council of Ephesus (quoted above) we read: Whosoever brings forth mere flesh, ceases to be a virgin. But since she gave birth to the Word made flesh, God safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest His Word, by which Word He thus manifested Himself: for neither does our word, when brought forth corrupt the mind; nor does God, the substantial Word, deigning to be born, destroy virginity.

   "Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's Incarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take away our corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should corrupt His Mother's virginity. Thus Augustine says in a sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord: It was not right that He who came to heal corruption, should by His advent violate integrity.

   "Thirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father and mother, should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother."

On virginitas post partu:

   "On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. xliv. 2): This gate shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered by it. Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - 'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,' except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this - 'it shall be shut for evermore,' but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?

   "I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

   "Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose shrine was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

   "Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

   "Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

   "We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, so did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Please keep in mind that one cannot gain an indulgence for another living person, only for self and the poor souls in Purgatory.

Gabriel of 12
True no one can gain an indulgence for another living person. IF you consider the Church not to be a person? but this may complicate matters here theologically so thanks for your clarification. The full context of my comment leans from being a servant to others and suffering for others. My train of thought in context reveals offering up an indulgence for any temporal punishment from my confessed sins, And I pray for those who may have been affected from my past forgiven sins, “Opus dei”, or as Paul teachings from his sufferings.

What I find interesting is the two levels of scripture reading is taken from Paul’s Christian life example and teachings. Here is an example;

dzheremi
“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.”

Gabriel of 12The comment relates to Paul’s conversion and penitent lifestyles. dzheremi, sees Paul’s life from the surface of scripture and draws from Paul’s example as a good Christian who is sincere in his conversion. This is drinking milk from scripture. The commentary from dzheremi paints a picture as to how we are to view Paul’s life, which I label as drinking the milk. The Catholic Church not only views Paul’s Christianity from scripture, the Catholic Church lives out the life of Paul in her self offering and suffering for others, to which I related my indulgences as suffering for others, not an indulgence for others.

The same example of Paul’s life from those who lived with Paul and who live as Paul example, gnaw on the meat of the scriptures, by living them out as Paul’s does, this is “Tradition” handed down in the Catholic Church which many non catholics reject or are unaware of this biblical life being practiced in the Catholic Church especially from our celibate Priesthood in the Western Catholic Church.

The practice of indulgences is biblical and comes from Apostolic Tradition being lived out today in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

An interesting way to put it, Marduk…

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

I am not aware that indulgences are an absolute necessity. They exist and can be used for the benefit of a soul, and that is as far as the Catholic Church teaches on the subject.

The following is a summary of my understanding of the matter:

Indulgences are not necessary for salvation, but they are helpful for the sanctification of the soul. Sanctification is necessary, but indulgences are not, for there are other means of sanctification. But just because they are not absolutely necessary does not mean that these “packets of Grace” don’t exist, and can be used by the Church to help her members.

IMO, the following is good biblical support for indulgences:

1. The parable of the talents, whose eventual lesson was “to those who have more will be given.”
2. The Lord’s teaching to lay up for ourselves treasure in heaven.
3. St. Paul’s exhortation that as members of the body of Christ, we are to share in each other’s sufferings and joys.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

Victor,

I got the take on St. Thomas from the Inside Line – my Dominican who taught me the Summa Theologicae on God. He told our class that regarding Mary and her immaculate conception. Then I came across the defective gene comment on his writing on the ‘Our Father’. Some people in the parish found out about his remarks and just couldn’t believe St. Thomas would say such a thing about women…and his personal conviction Mary was not perpetual virgin…I should have added it was his conviction…anyway, they went to the pastor and he said St. Thomas did have his human side. It was the Franciscans who affirmed Mary as perpetual virgin.

Recall, these were also the times of the coming St. Catherine of Siena…the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Carmelites…these were the Lord’s help in the time of corruption that finally peaked with the Protestant Reformation. And Martin Luther had originally not intended to go as far as he did…

Thanks very much for your great post on Mary…it is a keeper.

 

[Daedelus76]

Well, temporal punishment sort of makes sense. If I do something illegal, and later I’m convicted of sin and repent, I won’t necessarily be among the reprobates/the damned, right… but at the same time the police could still arrest you and take you to jail, and God doesn’t have to step in and prevent that to be merciful. This isn’t so much “punishment” from God, as a refusal by God to be arbitrary.

At the same time, purgatory as a Catholic doctrine doesn’t make alot of sense. Sometimes it sounds like Hell Lite. If God needs to punish people to satisfy justice so we “pay” for our sins fully, then it seems to me people are working for their salvation in the end, which puts believers in a bind. How much time is a crime against a holy God worth? Is a God who punishes you after forgiving you, really forgiving you? Does punishment per se really “cleanse” ones soul (if so, why do prisons churn out hardened criminals instead of saints?).

The Orthodox or Anglican practice of rejecting purgatory but retaining prayers for the dead makes more sense.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I honestly don’t understand, why would the “dead” who are more alive than you or I and are already in heaven need prayers? They wouldn’t need prayers unless they are in purgatory. Also, praying for the dead that are already in hell doesn’t make sense since these prayers wouldn’t be doing anything for them anyway.

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Victor,
I got the take on St. Thomas from the Inside Line – my Dominican who taught me the Summa Theologicae on God. He told our class that regarding Mary and her immaculate conception. Then I came across the defective gene comment on his writing on the ‘Our Father’. I should have added it was his conviction.

This is the other half of St. Thomas’ quote on women: "On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.’

I must question the source for your Dominican teacher’ comment. Where did he get the notion that St. Thomas did not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, when this idea goes direstly against his writings?

 

[Victor_Claveau]

The Orthodox or Anglican practice of rejecting purgatory but retaining prayers for the dead makes more sense.

The rewarding of the good and the punishing of the wicked is not merely a work of Divine Justice, but also an operation of the Divine Mercy, as He rewards beyond merit (Matt. 19:29) and punishes less than merited.

On the other hand, the remission of sin is not merely a work of mercy, but at the same time a work of justice, as God demands from the sinner repentance and atonement. For example, King David sinned against the Lord by murdering Uriah the Hittite because he desired Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. David repented this sin before the prophet Nathan and God forgave him, but God also demanded the life of David’s son in recompense for scorning the Lord (2 Sam. 12:1-18).

Adam and Eve are an earlier example of the same truth. God pardoned their sin of disobedience but inflicted centuries of the most rigorous hardships. So too were Moses and Aaron pardoned of their sin, which was but a slight transgression of the divine command, yet they were both punished by being deprived of the pleasure of entering the promised land (Num. 20; Deut. 36).

The punishment ordained by God for the sinner is not merely a means of improvement and warning, but is above all retribution for the insult offered to God. We must make some atonement for our ingratitude to God. If this satisfaction to the divine justice is not made in this world, it must be made, even to the “last penny,” in the purifying fires of purgatory. Such has always been the interpretation of those words of Jesus in Luke (and Matt. 5:25): “As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper” (12:58-59)

All Christians know and admit that Christ’s satisfaction for sin is simply infinite in itself — it is inexhaustible. Moreover, Catholics believe the good works of all the just believers, who are living members of Christ’s body, are the works of Christ Himself, their Divine Head. The Church has consistently and indignantly repudiated and denounced the Protestant doctrine of mere imputed justice. When God pardons the sinner, he does not merely cloak over his corruption with Christ’s merits — as the Reformers held — but he blots out the stain of sin from the soul, beautifies it with his holy grace and enlivens it with his own divine life.

Each soul thus united to Christ may truly say with St. Paul, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). In such a soul, Christ lives and works. Therefore the good works of the just are not only meritorious of a reward, but they possess an expiatory virtue — that is, they not only deserve a reward proportionate to their value in God’s sight, but also merit the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

This last effect of good works — the efficacy in remitting sins committed — may far exceed in value the debt owed to God because of His justice. Of this God alone can judge; He alone can estimate their value. But whatever is not needed by him who performs these good works for the remission of the temporal punishment his own sins deserve, goes to make up — together with the merits of Christ — a common treasury, placed at the Church’s disposal for the benefit of Her needy children.

Hence, when in virtue of an Indulgence the deserved punishment is remitted, God always receives satisfaction — which he claims and which his justice demands. The debt due to Him is paid in full out of the treasury laid up in the Church — the inexhaustible treasury of the merits of Christ and his saints.

 

[dzheremi]

I honestly don’t understand, why would the “dead” who are more alive than you or I and are already in heaven need prayers? They wouldn’t need prayers unless they are in purgatory. Also, praying for the dead that are already in hell doesn’t make sense since these prayers wouldn’t be doing anything for them anyway.

I thought prayers for the dead was for the rest of their souls in the Lord? Why does “purgatory” have to exist if we can all admit that we do not know for sure who is in heaven and who is not? Why else would we pray “Lord have mercy”? If you assume that prayer for the dead is useless in ANY case if there is no purgatory (as you seem to be saying by hypothesizing that it wouldn’t matter for those in hell and wouldn’t be necessary for those in heaven), then why do churches that do not believe in purgatory do it? It might behoove you to look into why that is. I found this page from an Eastern Orthodox church in Texas via a quick Google search. It seems like a decent summary.

The souls of our fathers, give them rest, oh Savior…

 

[Loboto-Me]

Actually I do think prayers for the dead are useless in any case other than to deliver them from purgatory. Those in heaven do not need our prayers, those in hell do not benefit from our prayers. That just leaves those who are in purgatory. To pray for the rest of someone’s soul once they’re dead is not needed because when you’re dead it’s too late anyway (IF there was only a heaven and hell). Now to pray for the rest of someone’s soul is very effective to help release them from the purgatorial process.

I have no idea why other churches would even bother to pray for the soul of someone they believe it’s too late to “save” anyway. Once a person dies, God has already judged them according to their faith and works and all that other good stuff.

Edited to add: Interesting that your link says this:

We do know that, like all of us, those who have departed require forgiveness of sins, and that they look for a “place of rest” in the bosom of Christ and so we make this petition, that God will provide these things, but again as for specifics about how this should happen we simply conclude with “Lord have mercy”.

Considering “nothing (name removed by moderator)ure will enter heaven” what happens when people die with venial sins on their soul? They need to be purged of them, they need to be forgiven of them… purgatory is when it happens. Even the orthodox believe like we do… and it almost sounds like they have an inkling of purgatory according to this statement.

 

[KathleenGee]

Victor,

All I can share was that was St. Thomas’s view according to this Dominican…may be in the context of her immaculate conception. I took his word for it, it was some time ago, however, but I do recall he said the Franciscans always saw Mary’s unique role, her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception…that was not a dogma of faith until only 60 years or so back…

 

[Victor_Claveau]

this page from an Eastern Orthodox church in Texas via a quick Google search. It seems like a decent summary. The souls of our fathers, give them rest, oh Savior…

Please keep in mind that the article referred to is Orthodox teaching and not Catholic. The Orthodox have a very different theology of the afterlife. They reject the doctrine of purgatory and believe a soul is judged at the General Judgment, not at the time of death.
Catholic belief is that the soul is judged at death. This is referred to as the Particular Judgment. The General Judgment is when we find out the results of our life. Our fate has already been decided. Every action reverberates down through time for either good or bad.
Orthodox believe that all souls go either to heaven or hell. An Orthodox priest once told me that their belief was that the soul is perfected in Heaven. I then asked him how that belief could be reconciled with Rev. 21:27, which says, nothing unclean can enter heaven. He did not have an answer.
All sin is caused by excessive self-love - we love ourselves more than we love God. Purgatory should be understood as a state of existence where the soul dies of the destructive self-love that caused the sin, rather than looking at purgatory as a place of punishment for sin. No soul would want to defile heaven.
Catholic teaching is that what happens to us at the time of death, depends upon the state of the soul at that moment. If the soul is “perfect”, and by that I mean “Loves God with all heart, mind, soul, and strength and loves his neighbor as himself,” then the soul will see God face to face. If the person has rejected God, then Hell is his destination. The vast majority of souls will have to undergo some purification before they are worthy to be in God’s presence.

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Victor,

All I can share was that was St. Thomas’s view according to this Dominican…may be in the context of her immaculate conception. I took his word for it, it was some time ago, however, but I do recall he said the Franciscans always saw Mary’s unique role, her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception…that was not a dogma of faith until only 60 years or so back…

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared on December 8, 1854, but the perfect sinlessness of Mary had been taught by the Fathers of the Church, appealing especially to such texts as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28. A feast commemorating the conception of Our Lady was known in the East as early as the seventh century and in the West by the ninth century.

The Church adopted the belief on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary at a very early date, explicitly rejecting the interpretation of the Judaizing sects, like the Ebionites, who looked upon the brethern of the Lord mentioned in the Gospel (Matt 12:46 and 13:55 with their parallels, as well as John 2:12, 7:3-2,10) as having been children born of Mary and Joseph. The Protestant Reformers, Calvin and Luther, solely on the basis of Scripture, held to the belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The Church teaching on this matter goes back to the first century.

 

[dzheremi]

Please keep in mind that the article referred to is Orthodox teaching and not Catholic. The Orthodox have a very different theology of the afterlife.

Indeed, this is the entire reason I have posted the link. To show that praying for the dead does not necessarily need to be inseparably tied to the doctrine of purgatory as Loboto-me seems to be saying it is.

 

[Victor_Claveau]

Indeed, this is the entire reason I have posted the link. To show that praying for the dead does not necessarily need to be inseparably tied to the doctrine of purgatory as Loboto-me seems to be saying it is.

If a soul is in the presence of God, it is not in the need of prayer. If a soul is in Gehenna, prayer will do no good. Prayer for the dead indicates that there is an intermeniate place where prayer will do some good. Prayer for the dead is Jewish in origin and goes back 5,000 years. It seems to me that if this was a false belief, Jesus would have condemned the practice in one way or another. Would He not have had the obligation to do so? He corrected the Jewish belief on divorce and the fact that Gehenna is eternal. Jews believed that the soul in Gehenna would be anniliated after a year. As a matter of fact, if you look up the word “Hell” in the Judaica Encyclopedia, you will find it defined as “Purgatory”!