Indulgence

[MoreCoffee]

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?

The punishments are temporal. Civil government is called temporal authorities. The link is present. It is not the only meaning but it most certainly is one. The temporal punishments due to sin is whatever consequence follows in the natural order from the sin committed. Theft leads to restoration. Murder can lead to loss of earthly life. Telling lies leads to loss of credibility. And so forth. The indulgence allows the Church* to dispense with punishments within her power to administer.

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

 

[Lamb]

The disciples are never shown in scripture to tell people about these indulgences yet instead we see scriptures point to Jesus.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

God allows consequences to happen to us. Consequences might look like punishment but are entirely different.

 

[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​

The disciples are never shown in scripture to tell people about these indulgences yet instead we see scriptures point to Jesus.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

God allows consequences to happen to us. Consequences might look like punishment but are entirely different.

Didn't you look at the first post?

 

[Rens]

Interesting.

Luther did not entirely reject the idea of indulgences and was not trying to say the idea behind them was heretical, only that the church of his day had perverted them. There is quite a bit contrast laid out in his Theses between ideas that he goes out of his way not to denounce and implementations and implementors that he decries vehemently.

Including some additional context might help here. In #67 and #68 Luther notes that indulgences promote some good, but that they are a very small grace in comparison God's grace.

#67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
#68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
If you continue on through the next dozen or so points you can see that he isn't asking Rome to abolish the practice so much as to put it back in proper perspective.

It's like nowadays 'all your future sins are forgiven even if you don't repent' preaching what happened then with indulgences. You have to repent. No I bought an indulgence. I can keep on sinning. That's what Luther got outraged about. Gods Grace and indulgence aren't wrong, only to abuse it and turn it into lewdness.
Nowadays that happens in evangelical churches. Yeah we live together without being married. So what? Accept me. All my sins are forgiven.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Interesting.

Luther did not entirely reject the idea of indulgences and was not trying to say the idea behind them was heretical, only that the church of his day had perverted them. There is quite a bit contrast laid out in his Theses between ideas that he goes out of his way not to denounce and implementations and implementors that he decries vehemently.

Including some additional context might help here. In #67 and #68 Luther notes that indulgences promote some good, but that they are a very small grace in comparison God's grace.

#67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
#68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
If you continue on through the next dozen or so points you can see that he isn't asking Rome to abolish the practice so much as to put it back in proper perspective.

It's like nowadays 'all your future sins are forgiven even if you don't repent' preaching what happened then with indulgences. You have to repent. No I bought an indulgence. I can keep on sinning. That's what Luther got outraged about. Gods Grace and indulgence aren't wrong, only to abuse it and turn it into lewdness.
Nowadays that happens in evangelical churches. Yeah we live together without being married. So what? Accept me. All my sins are forgiven.

The Catholic Church* does not now and never has taught that one's future sins are forgiven by means of an indulgence. That's part of Protestant revolt and Puritan revolution anti-catholic propaganda.

 

[Rens]

The Catholic Church* does not now and never has taught that one's future sins are forgiven by means of an indulgence. That's part of Protestant revolt and Puritan revolution anti-catholic propaganda.

No, but they abused it and not only Luther, but also the popes spoke against that I read. This guy says it too, it's like the modern day evangelical teaching the way they abused it then.

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/06/24/luther-and-indulgences/

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, but they abused it and not only Luther, but also the popes spoke against that I read. This guy says it too, it's like the modern day evangelical teaching the way they abused it then.

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/06/24/luther-and-indulgences/

Some modern evangelical teachers say things that are untrue. They ought to check the facts before making accusations but it appears that they do not.

 

[Rens]

Some modern evangelical teachers say things that are untrue. They ought to check the facts before making accusations but it appears that they do not.

Guess that's too much effort. I only heard about indulgences on a protestant school and it was taught like: the Catholics were telling people if they paid for an indulgence they went to heaven, but then the marvellous reformation came to end this.
This whole thing makes me think of McArthur vs the charismatics. There are charismatics that teach OSAS no matter what, even if you kill someone and don't say sorry you go to heaven I heard one say and there is strange fire, there are charismatics who preach against it, but he just throws it on one bunch and all charismatics aren't even saved and all te leaders are bad.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Guess that's too much effort. I only heard about indulgences on a protestant school and it was taught like: the Catholics were telling people if they paid for an indulgence they went to heaven, but then the marvellous reformation came to end this.
This whole thing makes me think of McArthur vs the charismatics. There are charismatics that teach OSAS no matter what, even if you kill someone and don't say sorry you go to heaven I heard one say and there is strange fire, there are charismatics who preach against it, but he just throws it on one bunch and all charismatics aren't even saved and all te leaders are bad.

Yes, it is like John McArthur versus Charismatics. He hates Charismatic teaching and is not not very fond of Charismatic teachers so his attacks against them are a mixture of bizarre falsehoods and misrepresented facts with some truth too. Martin Luther may have been right to complain about John Tetzel's practises with indulgences if Tetzel was doing what Luther accused him of doing. There is considerable doubt about the accuracy of Martin Luther's claims about John Tetzel.

Here is an image of John Tetzel (it is possibly deliberately uncomplimentary)

Catholic teaching at the time of John Tetzel is better represented by Ludwig von Pastor thus:

Above all, a most clear distinction must be made between indulgences for the living and those for the dead.

As regards indulgences for the living, Tetzel always taught pure (Catholic) doctrine. The assertion that he put forward indulgences as being not only a remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a remission of its guilt, is as unfounded as is that other accusation against him, that he sold the forgiveness of sin for money, without even any mention of contrition and confession, or that, for payment, he absolved from sins which might be committed in the future. His teaching was, in fact, very definite, and quite in harmony with the theology of the (Catholic) Church, as it was then and as it is now, i.e., that indulgences "apply only to the temporal punishment due to sins which have been already repented of and confessed" ....
The case was very different with indulgences for the dead. As regards these there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession.
He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the well known drastic proverb.

The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them. "Preachers," he said, "speak in the name of the Church only so long as they proclaim the doctrine of Christ and His Church; but if, for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know nothing, and which is only their own imagination, they must not be accepted as mouthpieces of the Church. No one must be surprised if such as these fall into error."​

(The History of the Popes: From the Close of the Middle Ages. Drawn from the Secret Archives of the Vatican and Other Original Sources, Volume 7 pages 347-348)

But people will never let the facts get in the way of a salacious fiction that advances their side in a debate.

 

[Rens]

If you let facts get in the way it's no fun and there's nothing to fight about. Our preschool was protestant and next to it was a catholic school. During winter we'd throw snowballs at them and they threw them back, all the while yelling: catholics elastics!! protestants elephants!! Then my friend and I saw that those catholic boys were quite nice actually, so we 'dated' them hahahahahahaha. I still have a verse from him in my poetry album.

 

[Lamb]

Didn't you look at the first post?

Yes, I looked at the first post. You wrote Pardoning the guilty for the sake of their souls and for the health of the body of Christ is what an indulgence is about.. That would be what absolution is for.

When a person is in despair (having turned to God in repentance), giving the Gospel (forgiveness of sins) is what the church should do. Not say 10 Hail Marys before forgiveness can be given out. Forgiveness of the cross by Jesus is not dependent on us doing something in order for a church to give it to us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, I looked at the first post. You wrote Pardoning the guilty for the sake of their souls and for the health of the body of Christ is what an indulgence is about.. That would be what absolution is for.

You've seen that the CCC and Code of Canon Law says and that neither says that forgiveness or pardon for sins is given with an indulgence. The pardon is for the temporal punishments due. Not for guilt or for the forgiveness of sins.

When a person is in despair (having turned to God in repentance), giving the Gospel (forgiveness of sins) is what the church should do. Not say 10 Hail Marys before forgiveness can be given out. Forgiveness of the cross by Jesus is not dependent on us doing something in order for a church to give it to us.

 

[Rens]

Yes, I looked at the first post. You wrote Pardoning the guilty for the sake of their souls and for the health of the body of Christ is what an indulgence is about.. That would be what absolution is for.

When a person is in despair (having turned to God in repentance), giving the Gospel (forgiveness of sins) is what the church should do. Not say 10 Hail Marys before forgiveness can be given out. Forgiveness of the cross by Jesus is not dependent on us doing something in order for a church to give it to us.

What if an ex Isis member killed thousands of christians? Same as Paul who was looked upon with suspicion by the disciples because he first killed them. He needed Barnabas to say: it's okay, you can trust him. Guess that's the idea with an indulgence.

 

[Lamb]

You've seen that the CCC and Code of Canon Law says and that neither says that forgiveness or pardon for sins is given with an indulgence. The pardon is for the temporal punishments due. Not for guilt or for the forgiveness of sins.

Believers don't receive punishment since Christ is the propitiation for our sins.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Those who reject God don't receive the benefits because they do not want it. As a believer, I'm covered in Christ so that when God looks at me, He sees His Son with whom He is pleased and I am not punished for my sins. I receive consequences here on Earth, but that is NOT the same as punishment. There is no need for me to have indulgences as a believer as I cling to Christ crucified for my sins. I will not be punished. That's the Gospel.

 

[Lamb]

What if an ex Isis member killed thousands of christians? Same as Paul who was looked upon with suspicion by the disciples because he first killed them. He needed Barnabas to say: it's okay, you can trust him. Guess that's the idea with an indulgence.

You're talking about unbelievers who reject the forgiveness of sins? They do not benefit from them without faith.

 

[Rens]

You're talking about unbelievers who reject the forgiveness of sins? They do not benefit from them without faith.

No I mean suppose one converts to christianity, but maybe that's not a good example, or a christian who fell in gross sin, for which they kick you out of church if you stay in that sin. Then if he/she repents they can come back and there's reconciliation. I think those things are used to get clarity. But then, that's only what I think it is, the way they explain it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Believers don't receive punishment since Christ is the propitiation for our sins.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Those who reject God don't receive the benefits because they do not want it. As a believer, I'm covered in Christ so that when God looks at me, He sees His Son with whom He is pleased and I am not punished for my sins. I receive consequences here on Earth, but that is NOT the same as punishment. There is no need for me to have indulgences as a believer as I cling to Christ crucified for my sins. I will not be punished. That's the Gospel.

Believers go to prison when they commit crime, some are executed for their crimes. Why are your posts so consistently denying what we all know is true. There are consequences for sin. Some are civil, some are matters of conscience, some impact mental health, some break relationships. One can be forgiven by God but the consequences are still there to be dealt with.

 

[Lamb]

No I mean suppose one converts to christianity, but maybe that's not a good example, or a christian who fell in gross sin, for which they kick you out of church if you stay in that sin. Then if he/she repents they can come back and there's reconciliation. I think those things are used to get clarity. But then, that's only what I think it is, the way they explain it.

Repentance is key. It's up to the church to give Jesus' forgiveness to those who repent, not punish.

 

[Lamb]

Believers go to prison when they commit crime, some are executed for their crimes. Why are your posts so consistently denying what we all know is true. There are consequences for sin. Some are civil, some are matters of conscience, some impact mental health, some break relationships. One can be forgiven by God but the consequences are still there to be dealt with.

Our government sends us to prison for crimes.

For the repentant, the church gives the forgiveness won at the cross, not punishment. Why do you think the repentant are punished by the Church when the repentant are not punished by God?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Repentance is key. It's up to the church to give Jesus' forgiveness to those who repent, not punish.

Temporal punishments are mostly inherent in the sin. The Church does not impose them as much as recognise that they are the consequence of sin.