N
Nine_Two
Guest
The part in brackets, where is that from?
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Ok, now link to a site that talks about Orthodox selling indulgences.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I missed it. Please direct me to it.
J
josie_L
Guest
It’s on page 15, post 215 and 216 (you can’t miss it).
V
Vico
Guest
Infants were communed with wine only and adults with both, then after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that defined transubstantiation, infants began to be excluded because bread only was adopted. The wine was received either via fistula or by intinction. Due to the doctrine of Concomittance the Whole Christ is contained under one species making the reception of both unnecessary.
(The Ethiopian Church uses unleavened bread with intinction, and the following source states, intinction was popular with the Greek people.)
The laity was afraid of misuse of the Blood:
“A withdrawal of the cup instigated by the clergy did not take place. The abandonment of the cup was rather a layman’s practice due to fear of dishonoring the sacrament by misuse of the wine. Such anxiety had manifested itself as early as the seventh century in the adoption of the Greek custom of dipping the bread in the wine-a practice repeatedly disapproved by ecclesiastical authority, but supported by lay sentiment. By the twelfth century the laity were avoiding the use of the wine altogether, apparently first in England. By the time of Aquinas [1224-1274] lay communion in the bread alone had become prevalent.”
Ref: Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 99, 274.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I had a feeling it was Catholic Encyclopedia. My eyes glaze over when I see them presented as a valid source.
Do you have any academic sources?
J
josie_L
Guest
Why do I need to give you an “academic” source, i.e., the information given about when and who and where abuse of indulgences was condemned is there?
V
Vico
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is correct.
In gratitude perhaps.
Orthodox do not share the same sense of penance that Catholics do.
Orthodox tend to view these as spiritual exercises. For instance, if one has a recurring tendency to sin as an obsession of some sort, one’s spiritual director would probably assign exercises to help one learn to control, or master, the passions. They are not necessarily to be thought of as punishments for the past sins, but more of as ways to make one spiritually stronger to resist the urges.
For this reason, the spiritual exercise, which may be something as simple as repeatedly reciting the Jesus prayer, or a more rigorous fasting regimen, may not ever change for the person, it could go on indefinitely. If something were assigned as a punishment it would be negative reinforcement and one might reasonably think that there should be a desire to see it come to an end. That does work if the desired goal is to assuage pangs of guilt, perhaps the sinner needs to expiate the guilt in some way as a way of clarifying his thinking, but there will still always be a need to master the passions and what one does for that might be very different indeed.
Such a spiritual exercise it might be continued indefinitely, just like a properly conceived physical exercise program might be prescribed by one’s physician to be followed indefinitely. This is just an example, I am not saying that this is the only way to look at it, but the spiritual exercise is normally spiritually therapeutic in some way, even if it doesn’t seem very sophisticated or complicated to us and we might not at first realize why the priest asks of us what he does.
I think that this also helps to illustrate the value in having one’s regular confessor as a spiritual guide. This cannot be done anonymously, one should ideally be known to one’s confessor, that he can know one’s tendencies and counsel the sinner appropriately.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is correct.
In gratitude perhaps.
Orthodox do not share the same sense of penance that Catholics do.
Orthodox tend to view these as spiritual exercises. For instance, if one has a recurring tendency to sin as an obsession of some sort, one’s spiritual director would probably assign exercises to help one learn to control, or master, the passions. They are not necessarily to be thought of as punishments for the past sins, but more of as ways to make one spiritually stronger to resist the urges.
For this reason, the spiritual exercise, which may be something as simple as repeatedly reciting the Jesus prayer, or a more rigorous fasting regimen, may not ever change for the person, it could go on indefinitely. If something were assigned as a punishment it would be negative reinforcement and one might reasonably think that there should be a desire to see it come to an end. That does work if the desired goal is to assuage pangs of guilt, perhaps the sinner needs to expiate the guilt in some way as a way of clarifying his thinking, but there will still always be a need to master the passions and what one does for that might be very different indeed.
Such a spiritual exercise it might be continued indefinitely, just like a properly conceived physical exercise program might be prescribed by one’s physician to be followed indefinitely. This is just an example, I am not saying that this is the only way to look at it, but the spiritual exercise is normally spiritually therapeutic in some way, even if it doesn’t seem very sophisticated or complicated to us and we might not at first realize why the priest asks of us what he does.
I think that this also helps to illustrate the value in having one’s regular confessor as a spiritual guide, or director. This cannot be done anonymously, one should ideally be known to one’s confessor, that he can know one’s tendencies and counsel the sinner appropriately, in a way coaching us.
V
Vico
Guest
Clearly worded differently between Catholic and Orthodox. Yet the conversion (metanoia) is needed in either teaching.
Sin:
CCC 1472 “entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified … following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner…”
CCC 1428 “This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.”
H
Hesychios
Guest
Since I was working from memory I would have to dig a bit, and I am not inclined to do so without good reason. I am much busier now and do not have the freedom and access I had before while I work that I once had (that should gladden your heart
).You can give me a good reason. Tell me that you do not believe what I posted, tell us from what I posted that you think is wrong. Challenge me.
If you do believe what I posted is correct I will not waste my time running around the tree for you.
This is what I posted:
Is it factually incorrect?
Which part?
- That Tetzel’s expenses had to be covered?
- That the diocese of Rome got some of the money?
- That the local diocese got some of the money?
- That the indulgence was not given freely, but was given in exchange for a donation?
V
Vico
Guest
What is not understood by some people is the method of an indulgence: that through pious prayer, charitible work, and abstinance (and currently there is also a norm for public witness), purification of the sinner is brought about.
Wikipedia is one source that states that St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was funded by sale of indulgences promoted by Pope Leo X (1517 A.D.). Council of Trent prohibited corrupt practices associated with indulgences, 25th session (1563 A.D.).
My bold.
"DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly."
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
Wikipedia is one source that states that St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was funded by sale of indulgences promoted by Pope Leo X (1517 A.D.). Council of Trent prohibited corrupt practices associated with indulgences, 25th session (1563 A.D.).
My bold.
"DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly."
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
J
josie_L
Guest
Ok, first, you must not be reading my posts because I think I clarified why I won’t believe what you wrote (provide me a source), second, it was not a universal practice/teaching to sell indulgences as some are wont to believe, thirdly, to give a donation/alms to expiate sin is not a service provided but a spiritual benefit received, i.e., an indulgence. If you were carefully reading Vico’s posts as well as mine than you would have understood this by now. Fourthly, selling indulgences was condemned long before Luther, so if ecclesiastics whoever they may be were still allowing it than what does this prove about the CC other than a disobedience to Church teaching/practice (take into consideration that the Orthodox were allowing absolution certificates)?Since I was working from memory I would have to dig a bit, and I am not inclined to do so without good reason. I am much busier now and do not have the freedom and access I had before while I work that I once had (that should gladden your heart
You can give me a good reason. Tell me that you do not believe what I posted, tell us from what I posted that you think is wrong. Challenge me.
If you do believe what I posted is correct I will not waste my time running around the tree for you.
This is what I posted:
Is it factually incorrect?
Which part?
Which of these statements do you disagree with?
- That Tetzel’s expenses had to be covered?
- That the diocese of Rome got some of the money?
- That the local diocese got some of the money?
- That the indulgence was not given freely, but was given in exchange for a donation?
p.s. If YOU can answer my questions I would be much obliged (recollect why we got on the topic of indulgences)?
J
josie_L
Guest
J
jam070406
Guest
Why?
I never asserted they sold them. But rather was showing that there was also a similar concept to them in the East. It’s just amazing that people will dismiss an entire belief in something based on the actions of a few bad people. It’s a very Protestant tactic.
C
Contarini
Guest
There was a long thread on indulgences a little while back. And I and a number of other posters (both Protestant and Orthodox) made it quite clear that we were not dismissing indulgences based on the actions of a few bad people, but based on more basic theological objections. In my case (I think this is true for the Orthodox as well, but I’ll let them speak for themselves), what I object to is the assumption that penance is a kind of debt to be paid, for which the Church can choose to substitute an indulgence. The concept of the “treasury of merits,” with its financial metaphor, is part and parcel of this mistaken understanding of penance. The concept itself is not objectionable if it simply means that we are all one body and so help each other in mystical ways that go beyond simply teaching or influencing each other. But when it is understood in financial and legal terms, and when the power of the keys is understood to give the Church the ability to take part of the “treasury” and apply it to the account of specific Christians, then we have a serious distortion of Christian teaching.Why?
I never asserted they sold them. But rather was showing that there was also a similar concept to them in the East. It’s just amazing that people will dismiss an entire belief in something based on the actions of a few bad people. It’s a very Protestant tactic.
Of course the use of financial metaphors makes it much easier for the practice to turn into a literal financial transaction without people noticing what a horrible perversion is going on. But the abuse is not the basis for my objection–it just shows what bad effects bad theology can have. The badness of the theology is the primary issue.
Edwin
J
jam070406
Guest
Of course the Church has always dealt with outside opinions of those that criticize the “badness” (in their eyes) of certain areas of her theology. They often distort the teaching by projecting (polemic) metaphors or opinions that aren’t actually there in the official teaching. You’ve managed to claim a financial transaction metaphor in the teaching that is not there in the official teaching, to dismiss the teaching. Claiming the metaphor leads to a literal transaction. Again, using a few bad examples in centuries past to surmise that the teaching must be false. Or as you say “a serious distortion of Christian teaching.” (therefore the Holy Spirit must not guide & protect the Church)
What do you object to in this teaching below, taken from the Vatican website?
X. INDULGENCES
1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, 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."81
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.NT
The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. 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. 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.83
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
J
jam070406
Guest
I’ve always gotten spiritual exercises from my confessor, whom I see face to face, who knows me and gives me guidance on sins I may struggle with. I don’t see how your way is so different or superior.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I’ve always gotten spiritual exercises from my confessor, whom I see face to face, who knows me and gives me guidance on sins I may struggle with. I don’t see how your way is so different or superior.
It seems that some posters seek to promote the idea of therapeutic guidance is something unique to the east, and that the west is all about “punishment” - which has become a dirty word.
I am old enough to remember times when parents meted out punishment for their children’s misbehavior. No one ever thought of that as unloving or an act of vengence rather it was seen as an expression of love to guide children on the right path - for their own sakes. Punishment was seen a therapeutic.
I wonder if this claimed distinction between the east and west is just a stereotype or worse, a calculated distortion, or just a modernistic aversion to the word “punishment”?
- Status