Why has penance and indulgences changed?

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Back in the good old days of the early church, men and women could spend years paying penance for committing certain sins. In this day and age, however, 10 Hail Mary’s will usually suffice.

In fact, one could get a plenary indulgence, meaning all of their purgatorial punishment will be removed, for just reading scripture!

What is the explanation for this change? Does God’s standards change? Sure, He has given the authority to the Church, but how can the Church decide what does or does not satisfy God? I understand the Church has the authority to ‘bind and loose’ etc., but how can they decide on matters of atonement and making one right with God and removing temporal punishment? So because the Church says reading the Bible for 30 mins will cleanse you of all temporal punishment, does God just go along with it? What about the old days when the sinner had to spend the rest of their life in penance?

Does God hold the man’s plenary indulgence for reading scripture for 30 mins in higher regard than a man who spent years in sackcloth?

So just because the Church says so, all purgatorial punishment is removed and no more cleansing is needed? How is that just? How does justice even play out in all this? Does justice change over time? How is it just that penance in the olden days took years but these days it just takes reading scripture? Does the Church command justice? Does the Church decide what appeases God’s righteousness?

 

[SaintFrancis333]

We’re all sinners and must all spend the entirety of our lives in penance to begin with.

 

[jmcrae]

Does God hold the man’s plenary indulgence for reading scripture for 30 mins in higher regard than a man who spent years in sackcloth?

God doesn’t actually worry all that much about what a person is wearing, whether it is sackcloth or silk; rather, God is concerned about what is in the heart.

Self-imposed humiliation and pain certainly have the effect of driving a person to his knees, but once there, prayer and Scripture are the means of getting back up again, and advancing further toward the Kingdom of God.

You can advance toward the Kingdom of God without adding deliberate suffering to the sufferings that come naturally in everyday life, but you cannot do so without a regular life of prayer and Scripture reading - so yes, in that sense, God does hold the man who reads Scripture for 30 minutes in higher esteem than the man who dresses up like a homeless person and begs in the streets for the rest of his life - even though Scripture reading is certainly the easier of the two activities. “My yoke is easy,” says the Lord, “and my burden is light.”

 

[LilyM]

Firstly not all priests give light penances - I’ve personally one across a broad spectrum from the big penance givers to the light ones.

Secondly - do you really imagine the average priest would simply give a couple of Hail Marys to someone who confessed a really serious (in terms of impact upon ourselves and others as well as offence to God) sin such as murder or child abuse? I’m sure some would, but that most would is highly doubtful.

Thirdly - indulgences are basically a matter of Church discipline and not dogma. And bear in mind that now, as always, one must be completely detached from all sin, mortal and venial, to obtain any plenary indulgence. This detachment is every bit as important, if not more so, than the actual prayer, scripture reading, confession and whatnot.

Now, as in St Philip Neri’s time (who commented on the difficulty of gaining a plenary indulgences) this condition is the real hurdle. So in no sense is gaining a plenary indulgence easier in practice.

As for public penances - well, the penance imposed on us in confession is by no means the be-all and end-all. We should all be undertaking much voluntary penance as well. Having a light-seeming penance, I think, avoids the potential that the penitent will somehow think they have ‘done enough’ in doing what their confessor prescribes.

 

[SonCatcher]

Back in the good old days of the early church, men and women could spend years paying penance for committing certain sins. In this day and age, however, 10 Hail Mary’s will usually suffice.

In fact, one could get a plenary indulgence, meaning all of their purgatorial punishment will be removed, for just reading scripture!

What is the explanation for this change? Does God’s standards change? Sure, He has given the authority to the Church, but how can the Church decide what does or does not satisfy God? I understand the Church has the authority to ‘bind and loose’ etc., but how can they decide on matters of atonement and making one right with God and removing temporal punishment? So because the Church says reading the Bible for 30 mins will cleanse you of all temporal punishment, does God just go along with it? What about the old days when the sinner had to spend the rest of their life in penance?

Does God hold the man’s plenary indulgence for reading scripture for 30 mins in higher regard than a man who spent years in sackcloth?

So just because the Church says so, all purgatorial punishment is removed and no more cleansing is needed? How is that just? How does justice even play out in all this? Does justice change over time? How is it just that penance in the olden days took years but these days it just takes reading scripture? Does the Church command justice? Does the Church decide what appeases God’s righteousness?

“Back in the good old days” a penitent could only receive absolution once in his life per canon law. He hoped he would die very shortly afterward, but this was not guaranteed. Rather than risk falling into a state of sin again, he would enter a monastery to remove himself from temptation as much as possible. The Irish “ruined” this practice for everyone by introducing frequent absolution. Penitents thought they were missing out somehow because they didn’t have to remove themselves from society for a decade or more so the indulgence was introduced in order to give value to the penances assigned.

 

[brikar]

I don’t have time right now, I am sorry. But quickly, you don’t understand indulgences at all. There are several requirements
to be met to obtain an indulgence. You can’t get one just by reading scripture.
One of the requirements of obtaining a plenary indulgence is being free of all attachments to sin, including venial sin. That isn’t very easy to do. Only God can know if you have done that. However, there is tremendous spiritual growth, when you are meeting the prayer and sacramental requirements on a regular basis. You will grow closer to God if you are putting in that much effort. Look into what is really required to obtain one and then start making the effort. Try it and see.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[LilyM]

Back in the good old days of the early church, men and women could spend years paying penance for committing certain sins. In this day and age, however, 10 Hail Mary’s will usually suffice.

In fact, one could get a plenary indulgence, meaning all of their purgatorial punishment will be removed, for just reading scripture!

What is the explanation for this change? Does God’s standards change? Sure, He has given the authority to the Church, but how can the Church decide what does or does not satisfy God? I understand the Church has the authority to ‘bind and loose’ etc., but how can they decide on matters of atonement and making one right with God and removing temporal punishment? So because the Church says reading the Bible for 30 mins will cleanse you of all temporal punishment, does God just go along with it? What about the old days when the sinner had to spend the rest of their life in penance?

Does God hold the man’s plenary indulgence for reading scripture for 30 mins in higher regard than a man who spent years in sackcloth?

So just because the Church says so, all purgatorial punishment is removed and no more cleansing is needed? How is that just? How does justice even play out in all this? Does justice change over time? How is it just that penance in the olden days took years but these days it just takes reading scripture? Does the Church command justice? Does the Church decide what appeases God’s righteousness?

Do God’s standards change? Well, Christ did step in to prevent the execution of the scriptural punishment of stoning upon the woman caught in adultery. I don’t think His standards change, but humankind certainly does, and for that reason different things may be appropriate or beneficial in different times and places.

 

[aemcpa]

I don’t have time right now, I am sorry. But quickly, you don’t understand indulgences at all. There are several requirements to be met to obtain an indulgence. You can’t get one just by reading scripture.

He is correct that there is a plenary indulgence attached to the devout reading of Sacred Scripture for a period of 30 minutes continuously, “under the usual conditions”. That is still a lot easier than doing years of public penance.

 

[Steveabrous]

Back in the good old days of the early church, men and women could spend years paying penance for committing certain sins. In this day and age, however, 10 Hail Mary’s will usually suffice.

In fact, one could get a plenary indulgence, meaning all of their purgatorial punishment will be removed, for just reading scripture!

What is the explanation for this change? Does God’s standards change? Sure, He has given the authority to the Church, but how can the Church decide what does or does not satisfy God? I understand the Church has the authority to ‘bind and loose’ etc., but how can they decide on matters of atonement and making one right with God and removing temporal punishment? So because the Church says reading the Bible for 30 mins will cleanse you of all temporal punishment, does God just go along with it? What about the old days when the sinner had to spend the rest of their life in penance?

Does God hold the man’s plenary indulgence for reading scripture for 30 mins in higher regard than a man who spent years in sackcloth?

So just because the Church says so, all purgatorial punishment is removed and no more cleansing is needed? How is that just? How does justice even play out in all this? Does justice change over time? How is it just that penance in the olden days took years but these days it just takes reading scripture? Does the Church command justice? Does the Church decide what appeases God’s righteousness?

The early church Penance, as you said, was very long and harsh. The early church did not have Indulgences only penance. That harsh and long penance, if completed, would remove all punishment due the person in Purgatory for thier sins up to that point I believe. That standard hasn’t changed.

The modern version of 10 hail Marys (if that) does not come close to removing all punishment due in Purgatory.

Indulgences developed from the idea that if a person does certain good acts it would lessen the old school penance. For instance ( I’m making up an example) let’s say giving food to the poor is worth 2 months of the old church penance. It would be said that a person recieved a 2 month indulgence( or 2 months worth of penance). that started getting confused and thought of as 2 months off in purgatory.

The modern church standardized indulgences into partial indulgences not assigning how much of old school penance a person would recieve, but just saying it’s not a full old school penance. the church also recognized that if (and that is a big if) a person lost all attachment to all sin including venial that that was worth a full penance given they did certain specific acts went to confession, recieved the eucharist and prayed the Popes intentions. Otherwise it is only partial, again no amount of how much penance it is worth is given.

The penance of the old church has not changed, it is still the measuring stick. The churches attitude on how we can recieve it has.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

He is correct that there is a plenary indulgence attached to the devout reading of Sacred Scripture for a period of 30 minutes continuously, “under the usual conditions”. That is still a lot easier than doing years of public penance.

Under the usual conditions means:

No attachment to sin
Having gone to confession
Receive Eucharist in a state of grace
Praying for the intentions of the Pope

Obviously the 1st one is where most of us fail.

 

[aemcpa]

Under the usual conditions means:

No attachment to sin
Having gone to confession
Receive Eucharist in a state of grace
Praying for the intentions of the Pope

Obviously the 1st one is where most of us fail.

The fact remains that we have it easy compared to the early Church.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Thanks for all the replies.

Maybe you didn’t understand my question properly, but nevermind I did a bit of digging and found the answer.

My question was more along the lines of how can the Church change what satisfies God and what makes atonement to Him?

My answer would be that the Church can do this because of the Treasury of Merit, right? In the early church a righteous person e.g. someone awaiting martyrdom could intercede on the behalf of someone else and wipe their slate clean when it came to penance. In the same way the Church can intercede for us by granting us an indulgence by drawing from the Treasury of Merit comprised of Christ’s infinite merit and the saints’ immeasurable merit. Would I be right in thinking that?

So the Church, technically, could set any standard but because of their Treasury they can intercede for us and wipe the slate clean. This is like Moses when he interceded for his people and made atonement for their sins because of his own righteousness, or more importantly Christ Himself who made atonement for us through His own righteousness and sacrifice.

 

[Vico]

The Church can do this because Christ gave that power to it, through the keys of Peter.

Pope Clement VI* (**Unigenitus):*Upon the altar of the Cross Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

Kent, W. (1910). Indulgences. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from New Advent:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

[PeaceInChrist]

“Back in the good old days” a penitent could only receive absolution once in his life per canon law. He hoped he would die very shortly afterward, but this was not guaranteed. Rather than risk falling into a state of sin again, he would enter a monastery to remove himself from temptation as much as possible. The Irish “ruined” this practice for everyone by introducing frequent absolution. Penitents thought they were missing out somehow because they didn’t have to remove themselves from society for a decade or more so the indulgence was introduced in order to give value to the penances assigned.

I have heard this before. Do you have a good source I could read on this?

 

[SonCatcher]

I have heard this before. Do you have a good source I could read on this?

My source was from a talk, not written, and the speaker did not cite a source. Until I find written information otherwise, I’ll have to scale back my response.

Catholic Doors indicates that the Irish merely did away with public confession, with no reference to whether there was a limit on the number of times the sacrament could be received (at one time, the sacrament was known as “second baptism”, which may introduce an implied limit if not an actual one).

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry mentions the plight of a poor monk who was given a penance to be performed until his confessor returned from a voyage only to have the confessor die before his return (the monk wound up performing his penance until the end of his life). Such situations may have prompted the reform mentioned above.

These three pages discuss Reconciliation as “second baptism”. It you conduct your own search, be sure to use quotes so you don’t wind up with a bunch of second baptist entries, instead.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

How in the world did people manage to stay in the Church in the early days, if they had only once shot at reconciliation after baptism?

Did people seriously commit no mortal sin after baptism, or at the most one?

And even if they did commit mortal sin, I doubt they would have confessed it for fear of the lifetime penance or downright excommunication if they sinned too many times.

 

[SonCatcher]

How in the world did people manage to stay in the Church in the early days, if they had only once shot at reconciliation after baptism?

Did people seriously commit no mortal sin after baptism, or at the most one?

And even if they did commit mortal sin, I doubt they would have confessed it for fear of the lifetime penance or downright excommunication if they sinned too many times.

Under that scenario, people waited until their deathbed, similar to how many waited until then for baptism, in the hope they would die shortly afterward.

 

[jmcrae]

How in the world did people manage to stay in the Church in the early days, if they had only once shot at reconciliation after baptism?

Did people seriously commit no mortal sin after baptism, or at the most one?

A goal we should all strive for.

And even if they did commit mortal sin, I doubt they would have confessed it for fear of the lifetime penance or downright excommunication if they sinned too many times.

This is probably why it became possible to go to Confession more frequently.

I think this must have begun in some places quite early on, since I have references from the 3rd century showing people going to Confession quite regularly. I’ll have to look them ups gain, but I know I have something in my library about that.

 

[Filioque]

How in the world did people manage to stay in the Church in the early days, if they had only once shot at reconciliation after baptism?

Did people seriously commit no mortal sin after baptism, or at the most one?

And even if they did commit mortal sin, I doubt they would have confessed it for fear of the lifetime penance or downright excommunication if they sinned too many times.

At that time life was shorter and less certain, one’s Faith was enough to get one killed in various places and times prior to and even after the Edict of Milan. While there were periods of time in the days prior to the Edict which were free of persecution, life was much different than it is today.

Obviously people sinned, but then again one usually had to enter into a period of catechuminate, and live the Faith before baptism. One would have had a time to practice virtue and abstain from sin prior to entrance into the Church. As a Catechumen one would join all the believers for the Liturgy up to the point of the Creed, and then one would be excused along with penitants who like yourself were excluded from the sacred mysteries of the Eucharist, which would have a far greater signifcance and impact on one’s life than today’s practice of allowing anyone to stay through the entire Mass.

The Church in Her desire to allow all to avail themselves to the Graces of God decided that it was better to allow Saints and SInners to be able to attend the entire Mass, even if one was excluded from Communion due to his or her sins. While it seems less stringent, it is at least in the eyes of the Church a means of exposing us to the graces we need to reform our lives. It would be much easier to discard one’s faith if they were not expected or allowed to Assist at Mass. As times and circumstances have changed the medicine which the Church uses to remedy our sins has been modified to fit the needs of the times, except for the requirement to confess our sins and receive sacramental absolution.