Indulgence

[MoreCoffee]

Pardoning the guilty for the sake of their souls and for the health of the body of Christ is what an indulgence is about. Guilt and punishment can cause a person to sink into despair. Hope and relief from punishment can turn around a person who is despairing so that they can get on with life, be accepted, and contribute to the community. This is what saint Paul is talking about in his second letter to the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 10 [5] But if anyone has brought sorrow, he has not sorrowed me. Yet, for my part, this is so that I might not burden all of you. [6] Let this rebuke be sufficient for someone like this, for it has been brought by many. [7] So then, to the contrary, you should be more forgiving and consoling, lest perhaps someone like this may be overwhelmed with excessive sorrow. [8] Because of this, I beg you to confirm your charity toward him. ... [10] But anyone whom you have forgiven of anything, I also forgive. And then, too, anyone I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, it was done in the person of Christ for your sakes​

 

[Rens]

Don't need one. Who cares what people think about you if He has washed your sins away.

 

[psalms 91]

Don't need one. Who cares what people think about you if He has washed your sins away.

Yes!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Don't need one. Who cares what people think about you if He has washed your sins away.

It isn't about washing away sins; that is done in forgiveness and that depends on Christ alone. It is about reception in the community. Some sins are public and well known. They bring shame and sometimes the shame can be very great. But I guess that is obvious in second Corinthians - remember the man mentioned in the letter who was engaged in immorality with his Father's wife?

 

[Rens]

It isn't about washing away sins; that is done in forgiveness and that depends on Christ alone. It is about reception in the community. Some sins are public and well known. They bring shame and sometimes the shame can be very great. But I guess that is obvious in second Corinthians - remember the man mentioned in the letter who was engaged in immorality with his Father's wife?

Yes, but then it was one church and if the community accepted you was very important, like 100 years ago in a village when the whole village would talk about you if you were a not married single mom who got pregnant. It is important to accept someone, but if people chose to look at you with their neck, like that pastor once, who used to be our pastor and my ex Always did the worship in his church, they were great friends, he even asked him to become a pastor for him, he came to visit his church later with his second wife and he totally ignored him, you filthy sinner, you may not divorce and remarry. LOL that was the last time he visited that church. That man has a tiny church now, he used to have dozens over the country of which he was the senior pastor/apostle whatever. Everyone gets sick of it and thinks: buh bye, off we go, church split nr. can't count it anymore. And if a whole church doesn't accept you, there's dozens of others that will. It's not that important anymore nowadays, individualism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, but then it was one church and if the community accepted you was very important, like 100 years ago in a village when the whole village would talk about you if you were a not married single mom who got pregnant. It is important to accept someone, but if people chose to look at you with their neck, like that pastor once, who used to be our pastor and my ex Always did the worship in his church, they were great friends, he even asked him to become a pastor for him, he came to visit his church later with his second wife and he totally ignored him, you filthy sinner, you may not divorce and remarry. LOL that was the last time he visited that church. That man has a tiny church now, he used to have dozens over the country of which he was the senior pastor/apostle whatever. Everyone gets sick of it and thinks: buh bye, off we go, church split nr. can't count it anymore. And if a whole church doesn't accept you, there's dozens of others that will. It's not that important anymore nowadays, individualism.

There is only one church. Many have departed it, founded their own group, and that makes swapping from one denomination to another possible. Not only is the risk of falling into despair gone but any kind of shame and any significant chance of reform is weakened for those who are willing to leave after discipline and go to a different denomination where they have no history and can pretend to be what they are not.

 

[Rens]

There is only one church. Many have departed it, founded their own group, and that makes swapping from one denomination to another possible. Not only is the risk of falling into despair gone but any kind of shame and any significant chance of reform is weakened for those who are willing to leave after discipline and go to a different denomination where they have no history and can pretend to be what they are not.

Yes that's the flipside, but if you visit a church and they were too lazy to help you when you were still married and it could have been saved, they should simply shut up afterwards, especially if they know nothing about what was the matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes that's the flipside, but if you visit a church and they were too lazy to help you when you were still married and it could have been saved, they should simply shut up afterwards, especially if they know nothing about what was the matter.

The church ought to help if it can but the church can never know the details of what happens inside a marriage so it has to be up to the married couple to work to keep their marriage healthy and if they will not then the church may be able to help after the breakup with accommodation and other physical and spiritual needs - perhaps even an annulment of the marriage if that is warranted.

 

[Rens]

The church ought to help if it can but the church can never know the details of what happens inside a marriage so it has to be up to the married couple to work to keep their marriage healthy and if they will not then the church may be able to help after the breakup with accommodation and other physical and spiritual needs - perhaps even an annulment of the marriage if that is warranted.

He just knew nothing, he treated him like a filthy cheater, while I was already remarried. It was annoying. We could always help all those couples and save all those marriages, my, in the middle of the night he even went there if a woman called complaining that her husband didn't put the garbage bags out or such silly nonsense. They're still married, they got tons of help and prayer and counselling. When we got problems there was noone, yes if you paid a few thousands they'd help you in Canada. I even called a pastor for help in the mental hospital. He had no time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Rens, what saint Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 10 doesn't make sins disappear thus it cannot make sinful actions into good ones. An indulgence can't turn wrong into right. First comes forgiveness and repentance and after that comes the application of charity, grace, consoling and so forth.

 

[Josiah]

There is only one church. Many have departed it, founded their own group, and that makes swapping from one denomination to another possible.

When one changes parishes (and perhaps also denominations if the two parishes are not owned and operated by the same denomination), they are not "departing" from the church - the Body of Christ, the one and holy and catholic communion of believers - they are simply leaving parishes (and possibly denominations). There are not two different Body's of Christ, not two different "one, holy, catholic community of believers" but there are MILLIONS of parishes and thousands of denominations (of which the RC one is generally considered the largest). The RC one has lost some 30 MILLION docilic official members just currently - making it the second largest religious group in the USA (EX-RCC'ers), larger than the two largest Protestant communities in the USA combined. Of course, LOTS of denominations are gushing blood, multitudes of "departures" (just not in the volume we see in the RC one).

In my parish (in a sense operated by the LCMS but not owned by the LCMS - less a denominational parish than say an RCC one), people who are received into membership need to indicate if they are a member of another parish (Of any or no denomination) and if their membership there was terminated. One could lie, of course (and perhaps that happens) but there is an attempt to do so. I don't know what a parish can do if one lies or simply indicates that they don't have membership anywhere (as most Americans don't); I don't know of any absolute, perfect way to prevent that.... yes, an excommunicated person from a parish of one denomination probably COULD join another parish (Catholic or otherwise), lying about the excommunication.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

I'm not opposed to PUBLIC absolution where a sin is very PUBLIC (if and only if the repenting one so requests).....

And I'm not opposed to restitution - when and where that's practical.

But all that seems unrelated to this idea of a forced donation to the individual RC Denomination as payment for forgiveness (declaring that the Blood of Jesus was worthless).

I think that only GOD forgives.... ONLY because of Christ's works and payment..... although Christians have the joyous privilege of announcing and applying that forgiveness. Anything that blurs that or denies that or messes that up is to be passionately avoided.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One must be ignorant not to know that nobody buys forgiveness. But it is hard to get the convinced yet ignorant to listen.

Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "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".

 

[Rens]

An indulgence is more for the others I think, or is it that you can come back to church?

 

[visionary]

Forgiving one another has nothing to do whether they are associated with a religious organization. It is a matter of spiritual health for the individual who does the forgiving.

 

[MoreCoffee]

An indulgence is more for the others I think, or is it that you can come back to church?

Usually it is for others, sometimes it is for one's self.

 

[Lamb]

One must be ignorant not to know that nobody buys forgiveness. But it is hard to get the convinced yet ignorant to listen.

Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "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".

It seems that Catholics believe that we still need punishment for sins and Jesus couldn't cover that part on the cross? Am I correct?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems that Catholics believe that we still need punishment for sins and Jesus couldn't cover that part on the cross? Am I correct?

Nobody needs punishment yet if one's sins are public and scandalous society inflicts its own kind of punishment. In the Church* the Church* may decide to excommunicate or do something less severe when a person causes scandal - it ought to be noted that some among the Catholic Church's hierarchy have shown signs of favouritism in this being severe with unimportant people and less so with important people and that too is a scandal that harms the Church*. The temporal punishments due for sins have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins. They are temporal because they happen in time and have limited duration. In ancient times a sinner who publicly worshipped the emperor by making the legally required sacrifices to him - this would be done to avoid loss of life and/or loss of property - would be excommunicated for a period and as a sign that they really did repent of their sins they were asked to sit outside the church's meeting place in public view for a time (sometimes several years); this was in the period following the end of formal legal persecution under Roman law. So no, you are not correct in thinking that the costly sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was unable to purify the sinner. As an example, one who steals may be forgiven by Christ's people and by the Lord himself yet still serve a time in prison or be required to perform public service as a kind of 'penance' for their wrong doing. In this case the penance is imposed by the civil law courts. For other sins for which the civil law has no special penalty the Church* may ask the sinner to pray and and turn from the habits that led them into the sins that they committed.

Church* means the body of Christ, not a church building.

 

[Rens]

It seems that Catholics believe that we still need punishment for sins and Jesus couldn't cover that part on the cross? Am I correct?

No it says they are already forgiven by Jesus, but others may still hold it against you, like that man with his father's wife. Paul told the people to forgive him now that he had converted. Jesus had already forgiven him.

 

[Lamb]

Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "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".



Temporal punishment due.

This is not the same as consequences of actions but there is the belief that we are still due punishments for our sins that happen here on Earth. Isn't this what the definition of indulgences state?