What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[KathleenGee]

Bluegoat,

You were given catechetical answers, there was a very indepth link to New Advent as a reference. People’s projection onto the 1983 Universal Catechism was nevertheless read through the filter of money and funds rather than the spiritual treasury of Jesus Christ as we believe. The in depth link to New Advent regarding indulgences was useless as well.

And there are many Catholics who do not follow the other teachings of our Church either.

Triune Unity brought up the issue of Christ being the only priest, and so that is why I stepped back.

I don’t think anything I would say would be of any use to you, inspite of my own credentials of professional training by my diocese. My work history has been with very poor people, and they only absorb the simplicity of doctrine…so simplicity is my style.

It doesn’t work for you. Nor does the catechism or other Catholic links.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune,

I think this is what Luther saw as one of the big problems. The Church was basically Robbing it’s people.

I haven’t seen the movie Luther yet, but want to. have you seen it? I was told it gives a pretty good portrayal of the times.

Cruisin

I actually liked the older one from the 1950s, cruisin. It was much more accurate historically. The newer one doesn’t even mention the debate over justification. Though, obviously, the production quality is superior.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Going back,

I think the first issue is that you do not believe in the sacramental priesthood.

Yes, that is true. We believe the called servants of Christ administer the sacraments. However, we define a sacrament as that which is instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins and attached to a visible element. This would rule out the pastorate. It would be more accurate, though, to say that we deny a sacrificial priesthood other than Christ as the fulfillment of the OT High Priest.

The second is you do not believe in the sacramental Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

That would not be true. I believe that the Eucharist is the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ.

And third, you do not understand that when the sacramental and physical union of Jesus Christ is broken by willful, deliberate mortal sin in the breaking of the commandments, it takes sacramental confession with a priest to be restored to the reception of the Eucharist.

Those who have fallen into repeated sin and do not confess it should not be admitted to the Lord’s Supper.

Because you have not experienced such profound presence of the Lord in the sacraments, you cannot really reject what you do not know.

I will leave that to God to determine whether I have experienced Christ in the sacraments.

So in spite of the abuses and corruption of the clerics, in no way do their sins affect the integrity of the sacraments.

That’s true.

The other problem, and I myself need to have more formal education, is that the Bible as a book, ended with Revelations and the last apostle, John. Revelation of God ends with Christ. But the kingdom of Christ is beginning with the Church…His legacy to us.

And without the binding authority of the Holy Scriptures to guide her, continually teach and reform her, the Church is sailing without a map. The Church that is disobedient to the Scriptures, is disobedient to the breath of God and cannot properly be called a functioning Church.

We need to study Church History to see how it developed and the problems that arose, and what the Church did to resolve it…and the resolution had to uphold the universal faith held by all believers throughout the world. That is why context is important…you do not look at one Church Father or one saint…but the teaching evolved from them that is affirmed and upheld by the Holy Father and all the bishops…Ours is the universal church, instituted by Christ, not a congregation or denomination founded by one man. It is also a human institution comprised of sinners.

And yes, the Lord said His burden is light, His yoke is easy. Learning to live on the Lord is a conversion process we must all go through.

I shared with you yesterday, Triune Unity, a little reference to the walk in perfection in the spiritual life, drawing on the mystics who helped the faithful, including those clerics who remained pure during the times prior and during the Reformation.

You and Cruisin would do well to research the magnificent life of the saints who came in those times…You look at the Church as if it were totally corrupt…in every diocese there were many faithful bishops, priests, and devout.

Jesus said He would leave us His Spirit Who would teach us many things and He told His apostles that they would do much more than He…that what the Lord is also implying is a new testament of what is to come of His church. He gave Peter the keys to heaven, to bind and unbind…He is giving His authority to His disciple and followers to create, form, build a church.

When people use Scripture to show the Catholic Church is wrong, it is useless to me. You are quoting the Scriptures at the beginning of the Church. Its history and work was just beginning. Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are inseparable and the Holy Spirit provides the transmission of faith in Jesus Christ. When we attend Sunday public Mass, we relate not with alot of emotions or hear sermons about the Old Testament and what happened before Christ. Instead we hear the Old and New Testament readings in context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is Jesus Christ Who sustains the Church. I believe this accusation of Catholic ‘works’ is a sham. The Gospel calls us to pick up the cross and follow Christ, to extend His presence into the world as His own witnesses… And we have the Church to give us greater access to the life and merits of Jesus Christ to further atone our inclination to sin.

Jesus removes the bad trees that do not bear fruit. The Church is self-reforming, continually changing, constantly reevaluating. I know because I have worked fraternally among the clergy and bishops.

Jesus does not say come to the Bible. He says come to Me at the banquet table. He speaks of heaven as being at the banquet table…and the very last image of Revelations is the Mass.

I do not see what any of this has to do with the doctrine of indulgences, which is not taught by Christ, nor His apostles

 

[hosemonkey]

I have NO objection to the doctrine of indulgences. I belive in the doctrine of indulgences for this reason:

                                     *O my God, I firmly believe that you are one [God](http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217)* in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became [man](http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) and died for our sins, and that he [will](http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12332) come to judge the living and the dead. **I believe these and all the truths which the holy [catholic](http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2678)** Church teaches, because in revealing them you can neither deceive nor be deceived.

This I believe also. Protestants do not believe this because they are Protestants.

 

[KathleenGee]

Triune, thanks for clarifying your position on the Eucharist…but people can be forgiven and return to the Sacrament…

With your other opinions of my Church, you own that.

I was referring to your post when you brought up the priesthood, and yes, ours is that of sacrifice…and so went back…to the priesthood and the fact that indulgences are tied to the sacrament of confession of which only a priest can administer.

People do not realize what a great grace of healing there is in the sacrament of healing with the priesthood.

And people do not realize the special help and grace we can draw on for our own inclination to sin with indulgences.

 

[cruisin]

And where did he say that and what he actually said?

Let me help you. Try Matthew chapter 11

 

[cruisin]

I actually liked the older one from the 1950s, cruisin. It was much more accurate historically. The newer one doesn’t even mention the debate over justification. Though, obviously, the production quality is superior.

i will check it out. maybe have a Luther movie marithon…

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ve stayed out of this thread for a while because the information I’d seen didn’t seem to cast indulgences in a better light, so I thought I would wait and watch for a bit. Having done that, I’m still not convinced, so I’m going to share some of my misgivings in narrative form to see if folks can understand them and provide satisfactory replies.

A young woman becomes the object of affection of a man. He shines his attention on her, woos her, tells her how much he loves her and how much he wants them to be together. After some time she finally says “yes” to him and their new life together will begin.

She arrives at their home to discover that his brother, an older bachelor, will be living with them. She is surprised to discover that he will be eating all meals with them (after all, her husband says, it just isn’t a “real” meal if he isn’t there), sitting in on their discussions and telling her what the “actual meaning” is of things she reads or hears. The husband explains that this has been the tradition in his family for centuries.

The husband then goes on to say that any problems the girl experiences should be discussed with his brother who will then provide solutions in his place (just like it was me saying it).Also, the husband has decided that he will place all of his love under the authority of his brother, who will dispense it to the wife “at the appropriate times”.

With this the brother takes the floor and explains that he’s drawn up a chart of all the ways that she can demonstrate her love for her husband. “He’s such an awesome guy” says the brother, “you are really lucky to have him, and I don’t think you always appreciate that, so we’re going to work on your attitudes and affections to make you worthy. And as you become worthy, I’ll make more of his love available to you.”

The wife reads the list and finds it to be a hodge-podge of items: reading a certain book, visiting a certain place, singing a certain song-many of the items seem to reflect her brother-in-law’s tastes rather than her husbands, but trying to discus that with her brother-in-law simply results in him adding new items to the list because of “deeply held attitudes”.

As time goes on the wife learns that simply doing the items isn’t enough-they can be invalid if the brother-in-law doesn’t think they were done in the right spirit. Like the time she got up from bed with a cold to wash his car. She had grimaced during a coughing fit and this was enough to invalidate the whole. So she climbed back into bed sorrowful, only to be told that this “self-pity” was yet another attitude to be worked on.

Refusing to let her view the ledger he kept notes in, the brother-in-law would only assure her that she was making “some” progress and to be hopeful and keep going. Which she did for many, many years-hopeful that her actions were pleasing her husband, and hoping to be found worthy of his love and possessing the proper attitude to deserve it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I really had high hopes for the newer Luther flick that came out a few years ago. I’ve always found Luther fascinating, always had tremendous respect for him (that I got slammed for in here when ever I expressed it! LOL) and thought he’d make great movie material. I saw the trailer for it and thought, “right on!” Of course it was a small venue flick so it never hardly even came here. I got the DVD all excited and was pretty dang bummed. It went so fast, details were skant, the debate with Eck (??), the justification stuff wasn’t there (as you said) and they blew through his relationship with catherine von bora at light speed. They didn’t sell his frustration and build-up to bolting from the Church very well. It was bland and tasted like tofu. I sold the dvd on Ebay LOL…

IMO to do a proper treatment of Brother Martin it would take about a good 3.5 hours. I honestly wish they’d make an HBO or History Channel or TNT type movie out of him that would take a few nights or weeks.

They could do a Lifetime feature about Martin Luther but Luther’d have to be a woman played by Kellie Martin and Betty White and Rue McClanahan would have to be involved LOL!!

I actually liked the older one from the 1950s, cruisin. It was much more accurate historically. The newer one doesn’t even mention the debate over justification. Though, obviously, the production quality is superior.

 

[Bluegoat]

I really had high hopes for the newer Luther flick that came out a few years ago. I’ve always found Luther fascinating, always had tremendous respect for him (that I got slammed for in here when ever I expressed it! LOL) and thought he’d make great movie material. I saw the trailer for it and thought, “right on!” Of course it was a small venue flick so it never hardly even came here. I got the DVD all excited and was pretty dang bummed. It went so fast, details were skant, the debate with Eck (??), the justification stuff wasn’t there (as you said) and they blew through his relationship with catherine von bora at light speed. They didn’t sell his frustration and build-up to bolting from the Church very well. It was bland and tasted like tofu. I sold the dvd on Ebay LOL…

IMO to do a proper treatment of Brother Martin it would take about a good 3.5 hours. I honestly wish they’d make an HBO or History Channel or TNT type movie out of him that would take a few nights or weeks.

They could do a Lifetime feature about Martin Luther but Luther’d have to be a woman played by Kellie Martin and Betty White and Rue McClanahan would have to be involved LOL!!

Hee hee! In all seriousness though I think Bob Hoskins would make a great Martin Luther in your miniseries.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I really had high hopes for the newer Luther flick that came out a few years ago. I’ve always found Luther fascinating, always had tremendous respect for him (that I got slammed for in here when ever I expressed it! LOL) and thought he’d make great movie material. I saw the trailer for it and thought, “right on!” Of course it was a small venue flick so it never hardly even came here. I got the DVD all excited and was pretty dang bummed. It went so fast, details were skant, the debate with Eck (??), the justification stuff wasn’t there (as you said) and they blew through his relationship with catherine von bora at light speed. They didn’t sell his frustration and build-up to bolting from the Church very well. It was bland and tasted like tofu. I sold the dvd on Ebay LOL…

LOL…yeah, no debate with Eck. The old flick had the debate with Eck, it was great. The acting was so-so throughout, though the guy that played Luther did a pretty good job.

IMO to do a proper treatment of Brother Martin it would take about a good 3.5 hours. I honestly wish they’d make an HBO or History Channel or TNT type movie out of him that would take a few nights or weeks.

I am surprised they haven’t. I’d also LOVE to see one done on the English Reformation. They’ve done A Man for All Seasons, but that just whitewashes More. That would be awesome.

They could do a Lifetime feature about Martin Luther but Luther’d have to be a woman played by Kellie Martin and Betty White and Rue McClanahan would have to be involved LOL!!

LOL!! Betty White as John Tetzel, McClanahan as Eck, and Jeremy Irons as Katherine von Bora.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Viggo Mortenson as Luther, Liv Tyler as Catherine von Bora, Ian McKellan as Staupitz, Andy Serkis as John Eck, Christopher Lee as Johann Tetzel, John Reys-Davies as Philip Melancthon, Sean Bean as Muntzer…wait a minute, this cast is starting to sound familiar!

Hee hee! In all seriousness though I think Bob Hoskins would make a great Martin Luther in your miniseries.

 

[Bluegoat]

Viggo Mortenson as Luther, Liv Tyler as Catherine von Bora, Ian McKellan as Staupitz, Andy Serkis as John Eck, Christopher Lee as Johann Tetzel, John Reys-Davies as Philip Melancthon, Sean Bean as Muntzer…wait a minute, this cast is starting to sound familiar!

Viggo Mortenson? Hmm. What about Rufus Seawell if you are looking for sexy?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Viggo Mortenson as Luther, Liv Tyler as Catherine von Bora, Ian McKellan as Staupitz, Andy Serkis as John Eck, Christopher Lee as Johann Tetzel, John Reys-Davies as Philip Melancthon, Sean Bean as Muntzer…wait a minute, this cast is starting to sound familiar!

LOL!

Harrison Ford as Martin Luther, Carrie Fisher as Katherine Von Bora, Mark Hamill as Philip Melancthon, Billy Dee Williams as Huldrych Zwingli, Jabba the Hutt as Johann Eck, the voice of James Earl Jones as Cardinal Cajetan, Chewbacca as Thomas Muentzer, Ian McDiarmid as Pope Leo X

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To me the idea of indulgences falls flat in the face of what Paul writes in Romans.

Romans 8
**Ro 8:1 For this cause those who are in Christ Jesus will not be judged as sinners. **

 

[KathleenGee]

Gabriel12, thanks for more explanation. I hope this can open the door of understanding with others.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My favorites here were Billy Dee as Zwingli. A black Swiss reformer. Now that I want to see! LOL…Ian McDiarmid as the Pope!!! LOL…that’s actually not a bad bit of casting…

As the pope excommunicates Luther and writes Exurge Domine he shoots lightning bolts and shouts “unlimmmmmited poooooower!!”

LOL!

Harrison Ford as Martin Luther, Carrie Fisher as Katherine Von Bora, Mark Hamill as Philip Melancthon, Billy Dee Williams as Huldrych Zwingli, Jabba the Hutt as Johann Eck, the voice of James Earl Jones as Cardinal Cajetan, Chewbacca as Thomas Muentzer, Ian McDiarmid as Pope Leo X

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just be sure cast Natalie Portman and Rebecca Romijn somewhere into the Luther film. Even as extras, heretics, peasants, I don’t care, just make sure they’re in it!

Admiral Piett would be a great bishop co-adjutator also. Admiral Akbar could play Melancthon for sure.

Now my idea for the English Reformation casting would go something like this:

The Rancor-Keeper (the fat guy that cried for his pet Rancor in Return of the Jedi) would play Henry VIII. Natalie Portman as Ann Bolyn. Mary Tudor is played by Sian Phillips (the evil Reverend Mother from “Dune”) and Elizabeth I is played by Rebecca Romijn. Edward VI is played by Sting. Thomas Cranmer is portrayed by Max Von Sydow. Charles V is played by Samuel L. Jackson with the exact same hairdo he had in “Pulp Fiction.” Thomas Moore is played by Freddie Jones.

I had an idea that we can have a time warp sequence where Martin Luther, played by Clint Eastwood, is sucked into a time warp while disguised as Junker George in the castle, and wakes up in 1982 playing Mitchell Gant, an American pilot sent to steal the Firefox jet from the Soviets…just an idea LOL

We could also do a Cold Case episode trying to solve some execution crimes by Mary Tudor but that idea is still being drafted up in its early stages…

LOL!

Harrison Ford as Martin Luther, Carrie Fisher as Katherine Von Bora, Mark Hamill as Philip Melancthon, Billy Dee Williams as Huldrych Zwingli, Jabba the Hutt as Johann Eck, the voice of James Earl Jones as Cardinal Cajetan, Chewbacca as Thomas Muentzer, Ian McDiarmid as Pope Leo X

 

[TriuneUnity]

My favorites here were Billy Dee as Zwingli. A black Swiss reformer. Now that I want to see! LOL…Ian McDiarmid as the Pope!!! LOL…that’s actually not a bad bit of casting…

As the pope excommunicates Luther and writes Exurge Domine he shoots lightning bolts and shouts “unlimmmmmited poooooower!!”

LOL…to Luther: “hahahahaha good…your Theses have made you powerful…now, fulfill your destiny and take Cardinal Cajetan’s place at my side!”

 

[TriuneUnity]

charles v is played by samuel l. Jackson with the exact same hairdo he had in “pulp fiction.”

ROFL…“say here I stand again I dare you, I double dare you say here I stand one more time!”