which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."
There is no warrant in Scripture or tradition for speaking of such a “treasury” from which the Church can dispense grace in bits.
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”
What this amounts to, combined with the previous teaching on the Church’s authority, is that the Church can decide whether part or all of this “temporal punishment” is to be remitted. In the older language, the Church could in fact quantify how much was remitted in a partial indulgence–the abandonment of this language is certainly a step in the right direction. (And yes, I know that the “days” attached to indulgences at one time were days of canonical penance, not days in Purgatory.)
The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead
If this is understood as the same power exercised in intercession (I can choose to pray for one person rather than another), then I can accept it. However, the legal/financial language used above makes me nervous even about this, because it seems to apply that grace is the sort of thing that can be transferred from one person’s account to another. This is in fact the root of the erroneous Protestant doctrine of forensic justification–indeed, if we accept the idea of a legal transfer of merit in the first place, Luther and Melancthon were correct to teach that the only such transfer necessary is the transfer of Christ’s merit to ours on the basis of a living faith in Christ’s saving work.
Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory.
Agreed.
This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
This part is, in my opinion, thoroughly sound. The problem is that this sound teaching does not fit well with the legal and financial language inherent in indulgence theology, even as found in the quotes from Paul VI in the previous paragraph. What we have is an awkward attempt to correct past error without acknowledging that it really was error–exactly the sort of thing that Anglo-Catholics have been doing for 150 years, with disastrous results. And it is no accident that in your Communion similar (but less severe) results followed, namely a great deal of confusion about just what Catholic Tradition really was.
If the whole question is really about the degree of charity present in the soul, then an indulgence must simply be something that increases charity. If indulgences are redefined along those terms, then I have no problem with them. (That is to say, I have no problem with the Church saying that a certain practice, if engaged in with the right intentions, will have a tendency to increase charity, and I have no problem with the Church further saying that such a practice can be done with the intention of benefiting another member of the Body of Christ.) But in that case the “treasury” language must be officially condemned, rather than being fossilized and reinterpreted.
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the "new man."84
I don’t have a problem with this, except insofar as the language of “temporal punishment” has in the past implied a legal, retributive punishment, and its continued use could easily continue to give people that impression. However, the bigger issue is that this paragraph, again, contradicts the concept of indulgences. If we are to strive to accept “temporal punishment” as a grace, then what is the point of trying to get this punishment “remitted”? If the point is simply that we are to strive for increased charity, which will make fatherly discipline unnecessary, then why not say so?
In short, I think the basic theological point being made in this passage is a wonderful one–but this casts into sharper relief the fact that the traditional language of indulgence theology conflicts with the basic theological thrust of the Catechism and has to be awkwardly reinterpreted.
Edwin
But my claim stands or falls independently of the existence of the abuse. At most, the abuse is a reason to look closely at the teaching and take criticisms of it seriously–but the criticisms must be considered on their own merits.