INDULGENTIUM DOCTRINA (Indulgences)

[rgrove]

Goes back to whether Rome and Protestantism can ever come together again. You thought indulgences were just an issue in Luther's day? They don't believe that any longer, right? Wrong. This is the 1967 pronouncement "Indulgentiarum Doctrina". This one contains a great deal of teaching that no protestant can really pass by without having a fit. It is very long so I have only put in a few sections. Notice that Chapter IV ends by saying the RCC "condemns with anathema those who maintain the uselessness of indulgences or deny the power of the Church to grant them.".

www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm

Chapter IV

7. The conviction existing in the Church that the pastors of the flock of the Lord could set the individual free from the vestiges of sins by applying the merits of Christ and of the saints led gradually, in the course of the centuries and under the influence of the Holy Spirit's continuous inspiration of the people of God, to the usage of indulgences which represented a progression in the doctrine and discipline of the Church rather than a change.[33] From the roots of revelation a new advantage grew in benefit to the faithful and the entire Church.

The use of indulgences, which spread gradually, became a very evident fact in the history of the Church when the Roman Pontiffs decreed that certain works useful to the common good of the Church "could replace all penitential practices"[34] and that the faithful who were "truly repentant and had confessed their sins" and performed such works were granted "by the mercy of Almighty God and . . . trusting in the merits and the authority of His Apostles" and 'by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power', not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness for their sins possible."[35]

For "the only-begotten son of God . . . has won a treasure for the militant Church . . . and has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, and to his successors, Christ's vicars on earth, that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation, applying it mercifully for reasonable causes to all who are repentant and have confessed their sins, at times remitting completely and at times partially the temporal punishment due sin in a general as well as in special ways insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the eyes of the Lord. It is known that the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect . . . add further to this treasure."[36]

8. The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven insofar as their guilt is concerned has been called specifically "indulgence."[37]

It has something in common with other ways or means of eliminating the vestiges of sin but at the same time it is clearly distinct from them.

In an indulgence in fact, the Church, making use of its power as minister of the Redemption of Christ, not only prays but by an authoritative intervention dispenses to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment.[38]

The aim pursued by ecclesiastical authority in granting indulgences is not only that of helping the faithful to expiate the punishment due sin but also that of urging them to perform works of piety, penitence and charity -- particularly those which lead to growth in faith and which favor the common good.[39]

And if the faithful offer indulgences in suffrage for the dead, they cultivate charity in an excellent way and while raising their minds to heaven, they bring a wiser order into the things of this world.

The Magisterium of the Church has defended and illustrated this doctrine in various documents.[40] Unfortunately, the practice of indulgences has at times been improperly used either through "untimely and superfluous indulgences" by which the power of the keys was humiliated and penitential satisfaction weakened,[41] or through the collection of "illicit profits" by which indulgences were blasphemously defamed[42] But the Church, in deploring and correcting these improper uses "teaches and establishes that the use of indulgences must be preserved because it is supremely salutary for the Christian people and authoritatively approved by the sacred councils; and it condemns with anathema those who maintain the uselessness of indulgences or deny the power of the Church to grant them."[43]

[Juan]

Hey! A point that I'm not ok with Catholic teaching! Good job rove!

Alright, but here's the deal.... This has nothing to do with salvation. It's a work of grace, not of our works, and as such is unimportant to unity.

Catholics believe (rightly so) that we are judged for our actions on earth, in addition to weather or not we qualify for heaven. If our actions were bad, but our faith is good, we have to be justly treated for those actions... and so there is a bit of limbo which is built in before heaven. An indulgence is simply an act of faith that allows you to repent for the things that would leave you in limbo.

In other words indulgences have nothing to do with salvation, and are as such unimportant to the unification of the church.

[rgrove]

Juan said:

Hey! A point that I'm not ok with Catholic teaching! Good job rove!

Alright, but here's the deal.... This has nothing to do with salvation.

Rome has made it a requirement for salvation. Rome "condemns with anathema those who maintain the uselessness of indulgences or deny the power of the Church to grant them[/b]. Again, they have added to the gospel and made the judaizers of Galatians look like amateurs.

It's a work of grace, not of our works, and as such is unimportant to unity.

Anathematizing everyone who falls under the last sentence makes it central to unity.

In other words indulgences have nothing to do with salvation, and are as such unimportant to the unification of the church.

Did you read the Encyclical?

[TianMing]

Just to clarify for anyone skimming, because that's all I've done on this thread, Indulgences aren't something still kickin' around today. They were back in the Middle Ages to help the Chruch build....I think it was St. Peter's Cathedral, but I'm not sure...

Either way, the docrtine of indulgences has been revoked, you can still donate to the Catholic church and it may put you in good stead for judgement, but it doesn't excuse sins nor is it in any way a free ticket into Heavan....some still think indulgences are in use...but they aren't really...

[Soulfyre]

While I agree that the most egregioius misuse of indulgences occured in the Middle Ages to support the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the fact that a Papal Encyclical in 1967 supports their use seems reasonably current. And the use of "anathema" to describe any who don't support this encyclical establishes the authority of the contemporary Roman Catholic church to issue indulgences based on the accumulated merits of the saints to relieve the suffering of souls in purgatory. I believe you will find that the practice is, in fact, in current use.

Part of the difficulty many among Protestants have with re-unification, for example, is the presupposition of infallability attached to such edicts from the Holy See.. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church finds itself in the position of being unable to abrogate any such doctrines without abrogating their doctrine of Papal infallibility. And since this is, in fact, the basic issue at the heart of the Great Schism (the original division of the church between Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox), re-unification seems unlikely, as neither the Eastern Church nor the Protestant denominations are willing to cede grounds for Papal infallibility.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[TianMing]

Strangely enough, the doctrine of Papal infalibility only came about in the 20th century, I'm curious as to how that'll pan out.

[Soulfyre]

Honestly, so am I, although the Papal See assumed authority as the Vicar of Christ much earlier than that. The Great Schism was, in part, fueled by this controversy, since the Eastern Church was willing to give the Pope primacy of place, and accept the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares. But Orthodoxy can not cede the Bishop of Rome the authority to the Church in plenum.

It seems somewhat as though the Roman Catholic Church has effectively painted itself into a dogmatic corner. To change its position would result in a sea-change that would potentially threaten its very stucture. I believe this change could occur, but I doubt that Rome is ready to relinquish its presumed control. Such a step of humility would indeed require the very grace of God.

God bless and keep you, Tian Ming!

Matthew (soulfyre)

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Just to clarify...

Indulgences are still a practice of the Church (gasps from the audience!). They came under abuse around the time of Luther, so it's a touchy subject for most Protestants and, therefore, for Catholics.

Before you can understand indulgences, you need to understand Purgatory. Unfortunatly, I don't have time to go into it now... hopefully you're somewhat familiar with it?

The long and short of it is this: Sins, even after they are forgiven, leave a perverbial "residue" on the soul, something that must be cleaned off before entering Heaven. Purgatory is the car wash. Doing a good work on Earth can pre-clean one's soul, thus reducing one's "time" in Purgatory. Say you stab someone. They can forgive you, but that dosn't heal their wound. Even after forgivness, there's still some healing that needs to take place. That can happen on Earth, or it can happen in Purgatory... it's up to the individual.

Donating money to do God's will is a good work, just like giving food to the poor and other things like that are good works. Unfortunatly, this association became abused around Luther's time... basically, you could buy "time" out of Purgatory at a going rate... like currency exchange. Giving money to help God's work is a pius act that can gain one an indulgence, however, we need to keep in mind the woman that donated the two copper coins... it's all about what's in the heart. It's not about the exact amount.

[Kenny]

L4E_WakaMol-King said:

Just to clarify...

Indulgences are still a practice of the Church (gasps from the audience!). They came under abuse around the time of Luther, so it's a touchy subject for most Protestants and, therefore, for Catholics.

Before you can understand indulgences, you need to understand Purgatory. Unfortunatly, I don't have time to go into it now... hopefully you're somewhat familiar with it?

The long and short of it is this: Sins, even after they are forgiven, leave a perverbial "residue" on the soul, something that must be cleaned off before entering Heaven. Purgatory is the car wash. Doing a good work on Earth can pre-clean one's soul, thus reducing one's "time" in Purgatory. Say you stab someone. They can forgive you, but that dosn't heal their wound. Even after forgivness, there's still some healing that needs to take place. That can happen on Earth, or it can happen in Purgatory... it's up to the individual.

Donating money to do God's will is a good work, just like giving food to the poor and other things like that are good works. Unfortunatly, this association became abused around Luther's time... basically, you could buy "time" out of Purgatory at a going rate... like currency exchange. Giving money to help God's work is a pius act that can gain one an indulgence, however, we need to keep in mind the woman that donated the two copper coins... it's all about what's in the heart. It's not about the exact amount.

About the forgiveness part: What has Christ done then? If it leaves a stain on us then what has Christ's suffering and death on the cross done for us? I am all about giving money to help God's kingdom on earth, but that does not forgive your sins in any manner whatsoever. You can't do any works to get your sins covered. It all comes by faith, and from Faith comes the works.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Christ has gained for us salvation and forgiveness. Sorry if I didn't make a good enough distinction between "forgiveness" and the preverbal residue left on the soul by sin. I don't want anyone to confuse indulgences with forgiveness... only Christ can forgive.

When one commits a sin, it brings evil into the world, and damages the soul, so to speak. We can seek forgiveness for that sin, and Christ in his generous mercy will forgive. The problem lies in the fact that that damage is still there... liken it to a scar after a cut if you will. There are lots of ways to heal the damage... prayer, pious acts, etc... basically anything that is spiritually healthy. I don't know if you're familiar with the Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation or not, but that is why you get a penance at the end of the sacrament. If you don't do that penance, your sins are nonetheless forgiven... but you will still suffer from the "side-effects" (if you will) of the sin.

I still like the analogy of the stab wound. Look at sins as stabbing Christ in the back, literally. If we earnestly ask for forgiveness, Christ forgives, but that does not mean his wound will magically disappear. You can look at penance and indulgences as things we do on earth to help heal the wound. What we don't do on earth, we have to finish in purgatory, so that we can enter Heaven spotlessly.

Hope that clears things up a bit... however, I can understand that it might not. If I'm correct, you do not believe in the concept of mortal sin or in purgatory... and that would make the idea of indulgences irrelevant.

[Alejandro]

Is there any Biblical support for indulgences?

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

There is some good scriptural background to the doctraine of indulgences. Before I post it, though, I should make it clear that the Catholic Church recognizes three sources of authority: The Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (Pope + all the Bishops of the world). I think this is why our Protestant brothers are often not fully satisfied when they ask, "Where is that in Scripture?" That being said, here is a good link from Catholic Answers:

www.catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp

It's fairly short and easy to read, but I'll copy some of the more relevant material into this post.

Before looking at those principles more closely, we should define indulgences. In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: "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 defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1). This technical definition can be phrased more simply as, "An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven."

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

Obviously, if you would like to hear more about this topic, you can read the whole document or check out one of the documents listed here.

Hope that is helpful. A fellow striver for the truth in Christ,

Stephen

[rgrove]

Alejandro said:

Is there any Biblical support for indulgences?

Short answer, no. Longer answer was provided well by Stephen. I would only add my recollection of a quote by Karl Keating (of Catholic Answers) which I can't find at the moment unfortunately. When speaking of the Marian dogmas of the church he notes that this is one of the last things accepted by those who convert to Catholicism (from a protestant background is the context). When they finally do accept them it's based on the authority of the church, not on the authority of scripture.

You will find some Catholic apologists who strain at the gnat to try and prove certain dogmas of the RCC soley on the basis of scripture (Matatics comes to mind), but after a debate between Matatics and James White Scott Hahn (who was moderating if I recall correctly) got really upset with Matatics because he was only defending papal infallability with scripture and didn't touch tradition. Hahn understands from a Catholic perspective this is neither necessary or wise. Once you accept sacred tradition as a co-equal authority to scripture then you need to make your arguments from that premise.

And Stephen is correct, Rome has never abandoned Indulgences. The document I quoted from was written in 1967. He is also correct that understanding it requires a fairly in depth understanding of Catholic dogma as well. One must also understand (very important actually) that an Indulgence means that the Pope is asking God to have mercy upon a person in purgatory. The RCC considers itself to rule in this world, but purgatory is God's domain. So an indulgence is not what many Protestants think it to be. God may choose not to provide the indulgence, not even the Pope can know. The popular Protestant understanding comes more from those who abused the system in the time of the Reformation. Later Rome cracked down and clarified the issues and largely eliminated the abuses that Luther and others saw so plainly in their day.

Of course all that being said, there is no such thing as an idulgence because there is no such thing as purgatory.

Hope this helps a little.

Yours In Christ,
Ron