What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[grannymh]

Have you ever read this article on Catholic Answers?

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

Cordially,
Mick

What is the date on your copy of Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, the Handbook of Indulgences? It is my understanding it was being revised early in this century.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[jimmy]

Gurney,

I could be wrong, but I think one can hold the Orthodox view and be a Catholic. I wonder if you entirely understand the Orthodox view? They do believe that Adam’s sin affected human nature–they just don’t believe in inherited guilt. I think that the theology of the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor is generally better than that of Augustine–equivalent depth and more balance. But I still love many things about Augustine, of course.

Edwin

Contarini, what is your undestanding of the Orthodox view of OS? What is your view of Bulgakov’s explanation in this book? He criticises the western seperation of Grace and nature (Grace is a superadded gift) and argues that Grace is inherent to human nature and is responsible for his freedom. With the sin of Adam man was cut off from the divine life, but there is kind of a residual grace that makes it possible to avoid sin and to worship God. This is evidenced by the sacrifices of the OT as witnessed by Abel, Melchizidek and others. If a man approaches God, God will give him Grace that will act from the outside (as opposed to from within as it would have if Adam avoided sin) so to speak. So the prophets and John the baptist and Mary above all achieved a holiness that was impossible for man alone, but they still didn’t recieve the effects of the death and resurrection of Christ until later.

Do you think this view fits well within that of Maximus?

 

[jimmy]

The problems here and the post quoted center on confusion about human nature, triple concupiscence, what it takes to sin, and the ancient relationship of time and penance performed on earth.

Could you elaborate grannymh?

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

No disrespect intended, but why do you assume I don’t understand the Orthodox view? Why make the assumption I’m not learned in their theology? It’s a tad offensive honestly. I realize the difference. If I didn’t, I’d quickly admit it. There’s much about Orthodoxy I still have to learn, their view of O.S. I understand. I disagree with their view and accept the Augustinian view myself. I don’t like their view of the atonement in relation to their view of O.S. Your last point is one of individual opinion of course. I respect your view. I am not very familiar with Maximus the Confessor so I cannot speak to him. I am more familiar with Augustine and greatly admire his works, viewpoint, and theological stances.

Gurney,

Please don’t be so quick to take offense. I don’t think I understood many aspects of Orthodox theology very well until recently–when I taught a class on Orthodoxy for the second time. And there are many things I still don’t understand, both about Orthodoxy and about many other things.

If you don’t want to talk about why you think Augustine’s view is preferable, then that’s fine. But I’m genuinely interested to know.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

Could you elaborate grannymh?

My apology, but I am not familiar with Maronite Catholicism. As I would like to elaborate within your terminology, I need to learn a tad more than what I found briefly on Google. Do you use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition?

The meaning of Orthodoxy also troubles me as I have seen it referring to traditional Catholics, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, etc. On this thread, there is reliance on the Early Church Fathers whom I don’t normally use. Then there is Maximus whom I believe is the person I was trying to research last year, but the thread was closed.

As for Roman Catholics, there is quite a mixture on CAF. I am now familiar with many of the Protestant positions so I can spot them in Catholic posting and reply accordingly. Ironically, my research on indulgences was in connection with an article titled "Does Purgatory Have A Zip Code??? Due to space limitations, I did not use my research on indulgences.

I also should apologize for my broadside of a post. This is one of my cranky (feminine for snarky) days.

Yes.

I would like to elaborate. Please give me a clue where I should start.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[jimmy]

My apology, but I am not familiar with Maronite Catholicism. As I would like to elaborate within your terminology, I need to learn a tad more than what I found briefly on Google. Do you use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition?

The meaning of Orthodoxy also troubles me as I have seen it referring to traditional Catholics, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, etc. On this thread, there is reliance on the Early Church Fathers whom I don’t normally use. Then there is Maximus whom I believe is the person I was trying to research last year, but the thread was closed.

As for Roman Catholics, there is quite a mixture on CAF. I am now familiar with many of the Protestant positions so I can spot them in Catholic posting and reply accordingly. Ironically, my research on indulgences was in connection with an article titled "Does Purgatory Have A Zip Code??? Due to space limitations, I did not use my research on indulgences.

I also should apologize for my broadside of a post. This is one of my cranky (feminine for snarky) days.

Yes.

I would like to elaborate. Please give me a clue where I should start.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

Start where you feel comfortable. The Catechism is a fine starting point.

 

[steve_b]

Sorry, but this is sheer spin. Aquinas obviously did deny the Immaculate Conception because he didn’t see how this could be justified with the universality of Redemption. It’s playing dishonest word games to say that he didn’t deny the IC just because no one had suggested to him certain later ways of reconciling the IC with the truth he wanted to defend.

Now it’s perfectly reasonable to say that Aquinas’s denial of the IC doesn’t put him outside Catholic Tradition *or *make the later dogma of the IC illegitimate. But claiming that he didn’t deny the IC is simply dishonest.

For me the bigger question is whether Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was correct in the first place. I tend to think that the Orthodox have a better approach, which makes the whole IC issue moot.

Edwin

My post was a quote from Manuel A. Pedrozo of Hilliard, Ohio. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6664634&postcount=313 Obviously one could say I wouldn’t have quoted him if I didn’t agree with what he said. So I’ll comment on why I like his thoughts.

The IC dogma hadn’t been formally defined yet though the IC was already believed at the time of Aquinas. The point being suggested is, Aquinas would believe the IC as the Church defined it. Period dot end of sentence. Now To say that, obviously one would have to know the thinking and disposition of Aquinas…true?

Until dogma is formally defined,

• one is not guilty of denying it. All it means in this case is, in the absence of a defined dogma, he was free to reject different propositions. And Aquinas rejected certain propositions

Drawing Augustine and Aquinas together in their thought process AND disposition, consider the following

Augustine and Aquinas have a certain similarity. They are obedient to the Church vs absolutizing their own views regardless of what the Church teaches.

Example.

As Augustine said “For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?” C. Epis Mani 5,6"

ALSO

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH” Trinitas 4,6,10 ergo (paraphrased), Augustine in both cases is saying, given my opiniopn or the Church’s position, I side with the CC.

Both Aquinas and Augustine had this quality.

Therefore, After the IC dogma was formaly defined, Aquinas would have been on board with the CC definition and the dogma…

Re: Original sin and Augustine’s view, vs the EO view, I’m not sure what your driving at.

the Catholic view of OS is

A: the original sin of Adam and Eve is passed down through the generations, but original sin is not the actual fault of the recipient. Rather, its effect is the privation of grace and the loss of original innocence that our first parents had.

 

[jimmy]

the Catholic view of OS is

A: the original sin of Adam and Eve is passed down through the generations, but original sin is not the actual fault of the recipient. Rather, its effect is the privation of grace and the loss of original innocence that our first parents had.

The Orthodox argue against that concept of Original Sin. See my post above in which I quoted Contarini. The EO reject the absolute distinction between Grace and nature as is often made in Latin theology. They will argue that Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely. Although man’s nature had become weakened he still was influenced by Grace, which acted from outside.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Orthodox argue against that concept of Original Sin. See my post above in which I quoted Contarini. The EO reject the absolute distinction between Grace and nature as is often made in Latin theology. They will argue that Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely. Although man’s nature had become weakened he still was influenced by Grace, which acted from outside.

Really, the more I think about it, the more I find it impossible to imagine that anything else could be possible. To work, grace would have to be part of one’s nature.

 

[jimmy]

Really, the more I think about it, the more I find it impossible to imagine that anything else could be possible. To work, grace would have to be part of one’s nature.

I think that the west is moving more toward this position in modern theology. Rahner and de Lubac and other theologians wrote books that essentially said this (even though they may have stated it a little differently).

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox argue against that concept of Original Sin. See my post above in which I quoted Contarini. The EO reject the absolute distinction between Grace and nature as is often made in Latin theology. They will argue that Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely. Although man’s nature had become weakened he still was influenced by Grace, which acted from outside.

Since OS is off topic to indulgences, I only gave that quick answer to Contarini re: Original sin because he brought it up. It’s been awhile since I was in a discussion on OS with EO.

 

[KathleenGee]

Interesting comments regarding Original Sin…somehow the more mankind learns about itself the more it sees itself reflected in each other irregardless of one’s beliefs…I see great progress in the social sciences in helping people get over their neuroses, especially in programs like the 12 steps that are based on Christian morality…it will help you if you strive towards living a better moral life…

I have been reflecting on how we are guilty through the fall of Adam and Eve…and then going back to reflecting on one’s family tree, how harmful behaviors and attitudes not corrected, can affect a number of generations, I believe --not through any scientific study, but intuition, beyond 4 generations…

And also a true conversion to Christ coming from a big, bad ‘tree’, and the desire to be totally healed of aberrations can be akin to Lazarus raised from the dead…

Considering our inclination to sin after baptism, the spirit willing and the flesh weak, could this point back to the original break with Adam and Eve?..indulgences address the purifying fire of purgatory and its remission, one is not buying away time from it, but is sacrificing something of value of this life as accepting one’s cross…a priest told me if we recognize and accept all the crosses Christ gives us with love and resignation, make frequent use of the sacraments, we go straight to heaven.

I have not read Maximus…I attended formation with the Secular Franciscans…and was most surprised to hear how different they are from the Carmelites and Dominicans. These religious orders seek God in the Ascent to heaven, draw on the teachings of Thomas and Augustine. But the Franciscans, of whom I resonate with, are actually based on the school of the East and coming to Christ in the Descent, coming down to the feet of Christ in one’s neighbor and serving Him in one’s approximate. I am of the Latin rite, but my natural inclinations of living out my faith and following Christ, through the Franciscans, are more Eastern in sentiment and practice. I will try to find the source that defines Franciscan roots.

So, I ask then, Original Sin has not been defined as a dogma? I am not as astute as others here, but wonder if the Latin and Orthodox may come to some kind of unity regarding Original Sin and one’s natural inclinations to sin through weakness as was addressed by St. Paul in his letters.

 

[jimmy]

It is dogma that human nature is fallen, but there are various explanations of OS. The eastern Catholics take a different approach than the western Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Really, the more I think about it, the more I find it impossible to imagine that anything else could be possible. To work, grace would have to be part of one’s nature.

Not to derail the conversation,

As Jimmy said

“EO reject the absolute distinction between Grace and nature as is often made in Latin theology. They will argue that Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely. Although man’s nature had become weakened he still was influenced by Grace, which acted from outside.”

ergo, EO recognizes that after the fall, man’s nature was damaged profoundly. So profoundly he couldn’t go to heaven even though he was still influenced by grace from outside. So what is still missing?

Catholics don’t argue that due to Original sin, man is cut off from outside grace or isn’t influenced by outside grace. That would be a mischaracterization of what the CC teaches.

Catholics make distinctions between types of grace, actual and sanctifying and how they apply
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Grace

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, there are different graces and different levels of gravity of sin from weakness to deliberate, willful and harmful sin.

So, then, are the Latin and Orthodox churches still working out these differences, are there developments in this area, as there are Catholics as myself that am open to a broader definition…and, to keep on the topic of this thread, still see indulgences as a gift by the Church, with our sincere cooperation and sense of penance and free will to further facilitate and aid our passage to heaven?

 

[jimmy]

Not to derail the conversation,

As Jimmy said

“EO reject the absolute distinction between Grace and nature as is often made in Latin theology. They will argue that Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely. Although man’s nature had become weakened he still was influenced by Grace, which acted from outside.”

ergo, EO recognizes that after the fall, man’s nature was damaged profoundly. So profoundly he couldn’t go to heaven even though he was still influenced by grace from outside. So what is still missing?

Catholics don’t argue that due to Original sin, man is cut off from outside grace or isn’t influenced by outside grace. That would be a mischaracterization of what the CC teaches.

Catholics make distinctions between types of grace, actual and sanctifying and how they apply
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Grace

Latin Catholics imply that after the fall man was cut off completely from the action of Grace when they try to defend the Immaculate Conception. The EO will accept that Mary was sinless, but she wasn’t given any special Grace that wasn’t given to others. When Latins argue for the IC they often argue that she was sinless and therefore she must have been concieved with an extraordinary amount of Grace that protected her from the effects of OS. This Sanctifying Grace that she recieved is the effect of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ acting retroactively through history. It implies that man can not avoid sin unless there is a superadded gift of Grace. The article you gave says this on the issue.
There is need of special refutation of Pelagius’s presumptuous contention that man is capable of avoiding unaided during his whole lifetime all sins; nay, that he can even rise to impeccability. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xxiii), with much more precision than the Synod of Mileve (416), answered this monstrosity with the definition of faith: “Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit … posse in totae vitae peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beatae Virgine tenet ecclesia, anathema sit” (If anyone shall say that a man once justified…can, throughout his life, avoid all sins, even venial ones, unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church believes of the Bl. Virgin Mary, let him be anathema).
It is a special gift given to Mary. The EO would reject the view of OS that says this.

The different approach does lead to different results. For example the EO do not have a problem saying that children who die without baptism are in heaven, while the Latin Catholics tend to be more reserved on this issue.

The EO are accused of Pelagianism for these statements.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, there are different graces and different levels of gravity of sin from weakness to deliberate, willful and harmful sin.

So, then, are the Latin and Orthodox churches still working out these differences, are there developments in this area, as there are Catholics as myself that am open to a broader definition…and, to keep on the topic of this thread, still see indulgences as a gift by the Church, with our sincere cooperation and sense of penance and free will to further facilitate and aid our passage to heaven?

I could imagine that they could come to a reconciled outlook on the Fall. But I can’t see them accepting indulgences in any way that doesn’t make them something completely different.

 

[steve_b]

Latin Catholics imply that after the fall man was cut off completely from the action of Grace when they try to defend the Immaculate Conception.

Here’s how the CCC defines terms we’re talking about

The IC has only 3 entries
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=immaculate+conception&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

33 entries for Original sin
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=original+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

11 results for Sanctifying Grace
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=sanctifying+grace&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

61 results for Human nature
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=human+nature&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

since EO admit that after the fall, man’s nature was so severely damaged he can’t go to heaven because of this fallen state, this says man is NOT a friend of God’s. Nor would God directly take His human nature from someone in this fallen state.

That’s why God took care of His mother 1st, in anticipation of His life death and resurrection.
J:

The EO will accept that Mary was sinless,

yes but how do they defend it?
J:

but she wasn’t given any special Grace that wasn’t given to others.

well, Isn’t that self refuting?
J:

When Latins argue for the IC they often argue that she was sinless and therefore she must have been concieved with an extraordinary amount of Grace that protected her from the effects of OS. This Sanctifying Grace that she recieved is the effect of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ acting retroactively through history. It implies that man can not avoid sin unless there is a superadded gift of Grace. The article you gave says this on the issue.
There is need of special refutation of Pelagius’s presumptuous contention that man is capable of avoiding unaided during his whole lifetime all sins; nay, that he can even rise to impeccability. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xxiii), with much more precision than the Synod of Mileve (416), answered this monstrosity with the definition of faith: “Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit … posse in totae vitae peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beatae Virgine tenet ecclesia, anathema sit” (If anyone shall say that a man once justified…can, throughout his life, avoid all sins, even venial ones, unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church believes of the Bl. Virgin Mary, let him be anathema).
It is a special gift given to Mary. The EO would reject the view of OS that says this.

Then according to them, how was she sinnless all her life without special grace? And how do THEY prove she was even sinnless? Where are their answers?
J:

The different approach does lead to different results. For example the EO do not have a problem saying that children who die without baptism are in heaven, while the Latin Catholics tend to be more reserved on this issue.

The CC says we leave it to God’s mercy.

as you said earlier, The EO will argue that “Grace is part of the nature of man, and before the fall man had a relationship with God in which deification was possible. With the fall man lost the divine life and possibility of deification, but was not seperated from God’s Grace completely”

when does this begin? Who does it apply to and who does it NOT apply to?
J:

The EO are accused of Pelagianism for these statements.

I’ve heard that as well.

Re: the topic
6 entries for Indulgence (s)
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=indulgence&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=indulgences&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[KathleenGee]

Bluegoat,
Again, the participation of indulgences is very, very deep and that many Catholics just are not in that much in the mystical aspect of their faith beyond Sunday Mass and some devotions…I came to the practice of indulgences seeing family members or friends or acquaintenances have heavy heavy crosses and implored the Lord through them for their intentions as well as for a loved one of mine.

I know for myself what it is, but in catechesis, it would be the last thing I would cover, and if I did, it would be from personal experience I tried here…but to no suffice.

What I learned here is that Original Sin is not dogma…and I was perceiving that it was not because the Church is drawing on two theologians…correct me, Catholics, but to have dogma, it must be accepted by the Holy Father and the communion of all bishops – representing us…

So, I see hope that as we progress, both lungs of the Church will reunite and form dogma…what I am reading here is quite deep and have to reflect more…we all desire integrity of faith…it shows as well, the Church is always growing in greater and deeper understanding of Christ and salvation and the unity of all believers…

God bless you!

 

[grannymh]

Interesting comments regarding Original Sin…somehow the more mankind learns about itself the more it sees itself reflected in each other irregardless of one’s beliefs…I see great progress in the social sciences in helping people get over their neuroses, especially in programs like the 12 steps that are based on Christian morality…it will help you if you strive towards living a better moral life…

I have been reflecting on how we are guilty through the fall of Adam and Eve…and then going back to reflecting on one’s family tree, how harmful behaviors and attitudes not corrected, can affect a number of generations, I believe --not through any scientific study, but intuition, beyond 4 generations…

And also a true conversion to Christ coming from a big, bad ‘tree’, and the desire to be totally healed of aberrations can be akin to Lazarus raised from the dead…

Considering our inclination to sin after baptism, the spirit willing and the flesh weak, could this point back to the original break with Adam and Eve?..indulgences address the purifying fire of purgatory and its remission, one is not buying away time from it, but is sacrificing something of value of this life as accepting one’s cross…a priest told me if we recognize and accept all the crosses Christ gives us with love and resignation, make frequent use of the sacraments, we go straight to heaven.

I have not read Maximus…I attended formation with the Secular Franciscans…and was most surprised to hear how different they are from the Carmelites and Dominicans. These religious orders seek God in the Ascent to heaven, draw on the teachings of Thomas and Augustine. But the Franciscans, of whom I resonate with, are actually based on the school of the East and coming to Christ in the Descent, coming down to the feet of Christ in one’s neighbor and serving Him in one’s approximate. I am of the Latin rite, but my natural inclinations of living out my faith and following Christ, through the Franciscans, are more Eastern in sentiment and practice. I will try to find the source that defines Franciscan roots.

So, I ask then, Original Sin has not been defined as a dogma? I am not as astute as others here, but wonder if the Latin and Orthodox may come to some kind of unity regarding Original Sin and one’s natural inclinations to sin through weakness as was addressed by St. Paul in his letters.

Yes, Original Sin has been defined as dogma. It is a contracted state due to the action of Adam which becomes the state of Adam’s descendents as one body of one man. One’s inclination to sin is due to wounded, not destroyed, human nature received from the sole parents of the human species through propagation.