Writer seeking information

[Teflon93]

OK if not from the bible then where did the doctrine of indulgences come from? An honest question. I really need to understand. A pope–a church father?

God Bless Jeanne

As the Early Church developed, the sacraments took their present forms. What we see in the Bible is quite often only the mustard seed of the sacraments of the Church—they had not had time to flower yet.

If you check the Catechism, you’ll find various documents referenced which allow the tracing of how the sacrament of penance and reconciliation developed from the binding and loosing authority Christ granted to the first priests of the Church.

Also note the contradiction in acknowledging that priests have the power to forgive sin in persona christi, thus opening the gates of Heaven to the flock, but somehow lack the power to ameliorate the temporal aspects of it. It’s like saying that the mother of a child may forgive the child for spilling milk but doesn’t possess the power to ask the child to clean up the spill, much less clean it up herself.

If binding and loosing authority is sufficient to remove the eternal stain of sin, by what lights is it insufficient to remove the temporal stain which is so much less significant and within every man’s power to do?

 

[Zooey]

You’ve received some very good responses thus far. I’d like to add a couple of comments, and ask my bretheren in advance for correction if I get something wrong.

You may be aware of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, “the repair of the world”. God gives us the opportunity to participate in his work of repairing the world, and we do that by doing good works. Good works can include such things as charitable contributios - alms for the poor, contributions to the Synagogue building fund, and the like. God looks favorably on works of tikkun olam. There’s a wonderful prayer that goes (forgive the poor transliteration) “baruch ata Adonai Eloheinu, melech ha-olam, shanatan l’anu hiz-damnut l’tikein et ha’olam”, which roughly means “blessed are you, Lord our God, ruler of the universe, who allows us to help repair the world” It’s a joyous thing, a blessing to be able to do it.

Indulgences involve a similar aspect of participation in Gods repair of the world. We cooperate in allowing God to use us as a vehicle for his work, thus demonstrating true contrition for our sins and making real reparations for the damage that we’ve done to the world.

It’s sadly true that the potential for the abuse of charitable giving has been realized on occasion in the past, but in fact indulgences cannot be bought or sold. The attempt to buy a spiritual gift is called “simony”, and it’s a very serious sin - in fact, to do so demonstrates that one does not have the intent necessary to receive an indulgence at all.

My understanding is that one of the results of past abuses is that monetary gifts are no longer allowed to be connected with indulgences,

As for your question about JPII restoring indulgences to use, that’s not really true because they never went out of use at all. It’s certainly possible that a growing number of the laity stopped thinking about them, but they’ve always been available.

Oh, and welcome to the CA forums.

I think this is the clearest (and most beautiful) explanation of indulgences that I have ever read.
That is an amazing prayer; thank you for sharing it.

 

[JeanneH]

Do you see how your second statement contradicts your first?

No God’s time is not our time so if “time” is spent in purgatory it is Gods time.
Do you see how indulgences is a contradiction in itself? No one knows how much time( on God’s time frame) a soul will spend in purgatory, in reality if any, so how can an indulgence shorten (God’s time) for anyone.?
An indulgence is taking away God’s punishment or cleansing if you prefer so how can a man(or whoever established the indulgences) know the mind of God to lessen our time in purgatory.?

God Bless
Jeanne

 

[Teflon93]

No God’s time is not our time so if “time” is spent in purgatory it is Gods time.
Do you see how indulgences is a contradiction in itself? No one knows how much time( on God’s time frame) a soul will spend in purgatory, in reality if any, so how can an indulgence shorten (God’s time) for anyone.?
An indulgence is taking away God’s punishment or cleansing if you prefer so how can a man(or whoever established the indulgences) know the mind of God to lessen our time in purgatory.?

God Bless
Jeanne

You are extrapolating well beyond the teaching. The Church doesn’t claim to know how much time anyone spends in Purgatory, nor even the precise nature of Purgatory itself. We know only that nothing impure can enter the presence of the Father and that at death one who is free from mortal sin may well nonetheless have venial sins on their conscience which they were unable to repent of and reconcile prior to their individual judgment.

Indulgences allow we the living to pay the temporal price for the sin of these souls in Purgatory who will be saints. The spilt milk must be cleaned up.

You have clearly bought lock, stock, and barrel Luther’s very uncharitable view of poor old Tetzel, a very unfortunate thing to do.

Why not read the Catechism on indulgences, prayerfully consider the true Church teaching as opposed to the bogus and false teaching of a man who brimmed with them, and consult the ECFs for the development of the doctrine before you reject it out of hand?

The Bride of Christ deserves careful consideration, doesn’t she?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hello all,
I am a religion reporter for a major daily newspaper, researching a story about indulgences.

Also…will you post us a link to the story when you’re done?

 

[JOE_OBERR]

I guess the above is not what you are looking for,

Speaking for my self only, I don’t believe in indulgences. I don’t believe that praying a certain novena or praying a special formula will shorten my stay in purgatory.

JeanneH

The power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Jesus himself and the Church from its inception has used this power. The Apostles or a Pope did not “make up” indulgences. Jesus gave that power to the Church, sort of like the power a state governor or the President has to commute a prisoner’s sentence.

Indulgences are part of Apostolic Tradition, that is, the Apostles taught the concept of indulgences to all the bible christians as they went about preaching the Gospel, the oral word of God. They also taught the whole of the Catholic faith, i.e., Jesus was the God-man, born of a virgin who remained a virgin, suffered & died freely to merit for us the liberation from slavery to sin, all the sacraments - baptism, the Mass, reconciliation etc.

As the basis of the Catholic faith isn’t taught clearly today many people take the attitude that each teaching is up for grabs; if it doesn’t make sense then I don’t believe it. If we were taught that Jesus is the originator of all of the Catholic Church teachings, through the Apostles and their successors, then a lot more people would be inclined to believe everything the Church teaches because it has a divine origin and is for our own good and happiness.

When one says I don’t believe this or that teaching of the Church Jesus founded one is really saying Jesus is wrong and I am right, i.e., God is wrong and his creature is right. The (oral) word of God is wrong & faulty and my thinking is true.

If one is Catholic and takes this position then he separates himself from Christ’s body, the Church, the same Church that St. Paul was persecuting. Of course if one hasn’t been taught clearly that Jesus instituted indulgences and that the Church has exercised the granting of them since Apostolic times, then his guilt is lessened as Jesus understands that the Gospel is not always taught in its fullness from Sunday pulpits and in RCIA & religious ed classes.

We still, however, have the obligation to seek & find the truth about the Church and its teachings. If we refuse to do that then we will be held accountable.

 

[Teflon93]

Excellent points all, Joe.

One more note:

Even the Protestants do not require that every Church doctrine and dogma be articulated fully in Scripture. Note that the vast majority of Protestants are Trinitarian—the dogma of the Trinity was not defined until long after the Apostolic Era. The Nicene Creed is not in the Bible.

Add to this a variety of extra-Biblical tradition various Protestants deem to be foundations of Christian dogma—from the Scofield Bible Commentary to the Westminster Confession of Faith to Luther’s Catechism to Calvin’s Institutes, The Fundamentals, etc—and we find a very odd and hypocritical standard being applied to the longstanding practice of indulgences in the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

I just so happened to be reading St Augustine’s “On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins” this morning and came across a very relevant passage:

Chapter 56.— The Case of David, in Illustration.

Some such thought has occurred to us about the patriarch David, in the Book of Kings. **After the prophet was sent to him, and threatened him with the evils which were to arise from the anger of God on account of the sin which he had committed, he obtained pardon by the confession of his sin, and the prophet replied that the shame and crime had been remitted to him; but yet, for all that, the evils with which God had threatened him followed in due course, so that he was brought low by his son. **Now why is not an objection at once raised here: If it was on account of his sin that God threatened him, why, when the sin was forgiven, did He fulfil His threat? except because, if the cavil had been raised, it would have been most correctly answered, that the remission of the sin was given that the man might not be hindered from gaining the life eternal, but the threatened evil was still carried into effect, in order that the man’s piety might be exercised and approved in the lowly condition to which he was reduced. Thus also God has both inflicted on man the death of his body, because of his sin, and, after his sins are forgiven, has not released him in order that he may be exercised in righteousness.

 

[Teflon93]

Also for your consideration, St Augustine from “On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness”:

Chapter 8

(17) It is One Thing to Depart from the Body, Another Thing to Be Liberated from the Body of This Death

He next proposes to establish his point by the testimony of Holy Scripture. Let us carefully observe what kind of defence he makes. There are passages, says he, which prove that man is commanded to be without sin. Now our answer to this is: Whether such commands are given is not at all the point in question, for the fact is clear enough; but whether the thing which is evidently commanded be itself at all possible of accomplishment in the body of this death, wherein the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would. Galatians 5:17 Now from this body of death not every one is liberated who ends the present life, but only he who in this life has received grace, and given proof of not receiving it in vain by spending his days in good works. For it is plainly one thing to depart from the body, which all men are obliged to do in the last day of their present life, and another to be delivered from the body of this death,— which God’s grace alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ, imparts to His faithful saints. **It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense. For no one, after going hence, shall arrive at fulness of righteousness, unless, while here, he shall have run his course by hungering and thirsting after it. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled. Matthew 5:6 **

and

(19) The Commandment of Love Shall Be Perfectly Fulfilled in the Life to Come

And in this prayer, unless we choose to be contentious, there is placed before our view a mirror of sufficient brightness in which to behold the life of the righteous, who live by faith, and finish their course, although they are not without sin. Therefore they say, Forgive us, because they have not yet arrived at the end of their course. Hence the apostle says, Not as if I had already attained, either were already perfect. . .Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. Philippians 3:12-15 In other words, let us, as many as are running perfectly, be thus resolved, that, being not yet perfected, we pursue our course to perfection along the way by which we have thus far run perfectly, in order that when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part may be done away; 1 Corinthians 13:10 that is, may cease to be but in part any longer, but become whole and complete. For to faith and hope shall succeed at once the very substance itself, no longer to be believed in and hoped for, but to be seen and grasped. Love, however, which is the greatest among the three, is not to be superseded, but increased and fulfilled,— contemplating in full vision what it used to see by faith, and acquiring in actual fruition what it once only embraced in hope. Then in all this plenitude of charity will be fulfilled the commandment, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. For while there remains any remnant of the lust of the flesh, to be kept in check by the rein of continence, God is by no means loved with all one’s soul. For the flesh does not lust without the soul; although it is the flesh which is said to lust, because the soul lusts carnally. In that perfect state the just man shall live absolutely without any sin, since there will be in his members no law warring against the law of his mind, Romans 7:23 but wholly will he love God, with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind Matthew 22:37 which is the first and chief commandment. For why should not such perfection be enjoined on man, although in this life nobody may attain to it? For we do not rightly run if we do not know whither we are to run. But how could it be known, unless it were pointed out in precepts? Let us therefore so run that we may obtain. 1 Corinthians 9:23 For all who run rightly will obtain,— not as in the contest of the theatre, where all indeed run, but only one wins the prize. 1 Corinthians 9:24 Let us run, believing, hoping, longing; let us run, subjugating the body, cheerfully and heartily doing alms,— in giving kindnesses and forgiving injuries, praying that our strength may be helped as we run; and let us so listen to the commandments which urge us to perfection, as not to neglect running towards the fulness of love.

 

[Teflon93]

Okay, okay, a bit more from the ECFs. How about St Ambrose, who wrote against the Novatian heretics who tried to limit the Church’s power to forgive sins in the 4th century?

From “On Repentance”:

1. They affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to Whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth none do Him greater injury than they who choose to prune His commandments and reject the office entrusted to them. For inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Himself said in the Gospel: Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained, John 20:22-23 who is it that honours Him most, he who obeys His bidding or he who rejects it?

1. The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient;** wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence**. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord’s word, he who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view.

1. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

1. And what is to be said of their excessive arrogance? For although the Spirit of God is more inclined to mercy than to severity, their will is opposed to that which He wills, and they do that which He wills not; whereas it is the office of a judge to punish, but of mercy to forgive. It would be more endurable, Novatian, that you should forgive than that you should bind. In the one case you would assume the right as one who rarely offended; in the other you would forgive as one who had fellow-feeling with the misery of sin.

and

1. Why, then, do you lay on hands, and believe it to be the effect of the blessing, if perchance some sick person recovers? Why do you assume that any can be cleansed by you from the pollution of the devil? Why do you baptize if sins cannot be remitted by man? If baptism is certainly the remission of all sins, what difference does it make whether priests claim that this power is given to them in penance or at the font? In each the mystery is one.

1. But you say that the grace of the mysteries works in the font. What works, then, in penance? Does not the Name of God do the work? What then? Do you, when you choose, claim for yourselves the grace of God, and when you choose reject it? But this is a mark of insolent presumption, not of holy fear, when those who wish to do penance are despised by you. You cannot, forsooth, endure the tears of the weepers; your eyes cannot bear the coarse clothing, the filth of the squalid; with proud eyes and puffed-up hearts you delicate ones say with angry tones, Touch me not, for I am pure.

 

[JeanneH]

[The power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Jesus himself and the Church from its inception has used this power. The Apostles or a Pope did not “make up” indulgences. Jesus gave that power to the Church, sort of like the power a state governor or the President has to commute a prisoner’s sentence.

Jesus gave the church His real body and blood, the Lords prayer, the 2 greatest commandments etc indulgences? Can you point to scripture where indulgences is eluded to or is this considered oral tradition?

Indulgences are part of Apostolic Tradition, that is, the Apostles taught the concept of indulgences to all the bible Christians as they went about preaching the Gospel, the oral word of God. They also taught the whole of the Catholic faith, i.e., Jesus was the God-man, born of a virgin who remained a virgin, suffered & died freely to merit for us the liberation from slavery to sin, all the sacraments - baptism, the Mass, reconciliation etc.

concept of indulgences? Would indulgences be the same as penance? If so that I understand.

When one says I don’t believe this or that teaching of the Church Jesus founded one is really saying Jesus is wrong and I am right, i.e., God is wrong and his creature is right. The (oral) word of God is wrong & faulty and my thinking is true.

No, I don’t think they are saying Jesus is wrong and they are right. I think they truly don’t understand the teaching. I would like to see in scripture where Jesus even eluded to indulgences again unless indulgences is the same as penance.

We still, however, have the obligation to seek & find the truth about the Church and its teachings. If we refuse to do that then we will be held accountable

Well I am trying here and I am NOT trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand.

God Bless
Jeanne

 

[Teflon93]

Again, you are falsely elevating Scripture over the Church Christ founded. Not every Church doctrine or dogma is found in full form in Scripture—including the dogma of the Trinity.

Where in Scripture does it state that Scripture is the supreme authority over the Church? You see the contradiction, surely.

As St Ambrose noted, the binding and loosing authority Christ granted to the Church is realized in the sacrament of penance and reconciliation. To attempt to limit that authority outside the Church is to fall into the Novatian heresy.

As Martin Luther did.

 

[reggieM]

Would indulgences be the same as penance? If so that I understand.

Yes, basically. Indulgences were based on how much penance a person was given in the Apostolic era. It was a matter of fulfilling a penance for a period of time (e.g. stand outside of the church for 6 months, or say the penitential psalms every day for 3 weeks, etc). So, a pilgrimage to a Holy Site, for example, made up for other penances.

Penance is accepting some pain to repair the spiritual damage of sin. It is both fulfilling justice and a means of purification.

Souls in purgatory are accepting some pain for both reasons.

Therefore, when people on earth offer indulgences for souls in purgatory, they accept the pain of fulfilling the action (prayers, pilgrimages, etc) which makes up for pains that the souls in purgatory are accepting.

This is how Christian redemption works. Jesus showed us by accepting pains to repair sin. We do the same by doing some penance which can be applied to ourselves, the living and those in purgatory.

Those penances are the acts that we call “gaining indulgences”.

Some of the actions seem quite simple and not hard to do at all – but they are given extra graces by the power of the Church (binding and loosing in heaven) to repair more sins that way.

Why? Because these are actions that the Church wants to promote. So, we’re given spiritual gifts – to move us to do things we wouldn’t ordinarily do. Perhaps we wouldn’t pray the rosary, or visit the Blessed Sacrament. But the Church wants us to do those devotions more, so by the power of binding and loosing – indulgences are attached to those actions that give them more power of redemption.

So, indulgences fulfill a double or triple amount of good. We do actions that the Church wants us to practice anyway for our own benefit (there are many choices to pick from). This benefits the Church because Catholics are doing things that the Church knows are best for everybody (that’s why we shouldn’t neglect indulgences). Plus, the faithful receive special graces that go over and above what seems like the difficulty of the action. Sins are repaired, souls in purgatory released, and our own souls are purified (every indulgence takes away some or all of the “remnants” of sin in our souls).

 

[JeanneH]

Hi Teflon93

Why not read the Catechism on indulgences, prayerfully consider the true Church teaching as opposed to the bogus and false teaching of a man who brimmed with them, and consult the ECFs for the development of the doctrine before you reject it out of hand?

The Bride of Christ deserves careful consideration, doesn’t she?

You are right there is a block someplace. I will read the
catechism and I have the 3 books on the ECF. I will look up what they have to say on indulgences.

I want to thank Joe, reggie and jmacrae for all your patience and help.

A special thanks to you Teflon.
God Bless
Jeanne

 

[Joe_5859]

You can’t go wrong consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church: CCC 1471-1479. See also the Code of Canon Law: Canons 992-997.

In addition, you might want to get your hands on the Handbook of Indulgences. It lists all the indulgences a person can receive (except for those “special occassions” such as the Year of St. Paul or the Jubilee Year 2000). The introduction also contains a very useful explanation of the purpose of an indulgence and how to obtain one.

One of the requirements is that the intended recipient of the indulgence go to Confession and receive the Eucharist (within a few days before or after). Thus, if someone is going to Confession and Mass weekly, they could obtain an indulgence every day.

The fact that you are aware that indulgences still exist in the Catholic Church and that it was only the sale of indulgences at the time of Luther that was condemned shows that you already have a better understanding of them than most Catholics. God bless you for taking the time to get your facts right on this before you write an article.

 

[reggieM]

Hi Teflon93

You are right there is a block someplace. I will read the
catechism and I have the 3 books on the ECF. I will look up what they have to say on indulgences.

I want to thank Joe, reggie and jmacrae for all your patience and help.

A special thanks to you Teflon.
God Bless
Jeanne

Thanks for keeping an open mind, Jeanne.

 

[Teflon93]

Hi Teflon93

You are right there is a block someplace. I will read the
catechism and I have the 3 books on the ECF. I will look up what they have to say on indulgences.

I want to thank Joe, reggie and jmacrae for all your patience and help.

A special thanks to you Teflon.
God Bless
Jeanne

God bless you, Jeanne. I’ll pass along any additional ECF info I find; I’m working through their writings myself.

I also must confess that as I do so I’m becoming more and more aware of how distorted my own thinking has been by the Reformation. Things which have required a leap of faith in the Church are becoming clearer as I see the sweep of it from the earliest days. I understand better the bemusement of the lifelong Catholic when certain questions are raised as the Protestant line of thinking—so natural to those of us steeped in it from childhood—cuts so across the grain of Church tradition.

A colleague of mine has a jeweler’s eye for inconsistency. He doesn’t always know precisely what or where a flaw in an analysis lies, but he knows something’s wrong with it. It takes time to figure out the what and where but he bats close to 1.000 in finding such problems. At first, I rather resented his feedback, which invariably sent me back to review and redo work I’d thought complete. But I came to see the value in his ability as when he was comfortable with it I could be quite sure there were no errors or inconsistencies for anyone else to find.

I think it’s like that with the Church, where the greatest minds in Christendom have carefully deliberated things for millennia. I don’t always know WHY something is true—but every time I dig into it I find the Church’s position to be better supported and more practical than mine where we have differed.

Of course, I still have to dig into it, the Portuguese being too stubborn for our own good.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Jesus gave the church His real body and blood, the Lords prayer, the 2 greatest commandments etc indulgences? Can you point to scripture where indulgences is eluded to or is this considered oral tradition?

I’m not aware of any bible vs supporting the teaching on indulgences. But that’s ok as Christianity doesn’t come from my or anyone’s personal interpretation of bible verses. Christianity and its teachings comes directly from the preaching of the Gospel, by the Apostles who learned the oral word of God directly from the Word of God himself, Jesus. This is called Apostolic Tradition as it is not passed on via written media but orally under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

All Church teachings are derived from the Gospel as preached by the Apostles. That is how the bible Christians learned the Gospel, by listening to the Apostles and observing their actions. It was not written as Jesus commanded them to preach the Gospel (Mk 16:15), not to write it. That’s because Jesus, being God, knew the perfect way to teach was orally, which is what he did. There were no printing presses until the 1400s.

In light of this one should not expect to find all of the Church teachings in Scripture, if for no other reason no New Testament book claims to have it.

concept of indulgences? Would indulgences be the same as penance? If so that I understand.

No. Two distinct, yet closely related teachings. In short, penance is an action done to atone for sin, the granting of an indulgence remits all or part of the temporal punishment due to sin for one still in purgatory.

No, I don’t think they are saying Jesus is wrong and they are right. I think they truly don’t understand the teaching. I would like to see in scripture where Jesus even eluded to indulgences again unless indulgences is the same as penance.

Your point about seeing in Scripture where indulgences are mentioned is addressed above in my first response.

Hope this helps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello all,
I am a religion reporter for a major daily newspaper, researching a story about indulgences. My background is not Catholic, so I am only familiar with the concept in the context of history lessons about Martin Luther and the way the sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages factored in the Reformation movement. I realize that indulgences have always remained part of church tradition, and that they have not been sold since the age of the Crusades. But they seem to have been much less in use after Vatican II, only to be restored by Pope John Paul II in the year 2000, in honor of theJubilee Year. I would be interested in hearing from Catholics about their understanding of indulgences – and whether they have taken up Pope Benedict’s offer of indulgences in honor of the celebration of St. Paul this year. Further, I have wondered whether the practice of receiving indulgences has, as a side-effect, also re-kindled the practice of confession, or reconciliation, among Catholics who may have fallen out of the habit of confession. Statistics gathered by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops indicate that 75 percent of Catholics surveyed in 2006 never participate in the sacrament of reconciliation, or do so less than once a year. Has the re-emphasis on indulgence changed that for people in any way? I realize this is a lot to bite off in one question, but it seems there would be some connection. Please illuminate and discuss. Thank you very much…

Articles on Indulgences

---

A PRIMER ON INDULGENCES
By James Akin
catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp

**MYTHS ABOUT INDULGENCES **
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp
What’s Wrong with a Little Indulgence?
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609fea3.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK if not from the bible then where did the doctrine of indulgences come from? An honest question. I really need to understand. A pope–a church father?

God Bless Jeanne

Jeanne-

I have two recommendations. First, read the articles I posted above by Jimmy Akin. This will take a few minutes and cost you nothing.

Second, purchase Jimmy Akin’s book, The Salvation Controversy which covers indulgences in an excellent chapter.