Posted on 05/20/2015 8:17:11 AM PDT by Salvation
by Jimmy Akin
Ever since Luther's Ninety-Five Theses was posted in 1517 to the door of the castle church in Wittenburg, the topic of indulgences has been a controversial one. In this article Jimmy Akin explains exactly what indulgences are and how they may be applied by Catholics to mitigate the temporal punishment due to sin. He discusses the nature of punishment, the role of grace, and the role of the Church, ending with an explanation of how an indulgence may be obtained.
October 31, 1517, is sometimes celebrated as the birth date of the Protestant Reformation. It was on this day that Martin Luther reportedly nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenburg, although there are no contemporary accounts of this event.
The Ninety-Five Theses were not a manifesto for the Protestant Reformation but a set of propositions for a public debate. They did not deal with any of the doctrines that came to be hallmarks of Protestant theology. For example, they make no reference to justification by faith alone or to theology by Scripture alone (sola scriptura).
Luther's main concern was the Church's penitential system, particularly the doctrine of indulgences. In fact, the official title of Luther's posting is Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.
An indulgence had been issued to raise funds for construction on St. Peter's Basilica, and when it was preached in Luther's area, some of the common folk came away with erroneous ideas. Luther issued his proposition in response.
In a letter to the archbishop of Mainz (dated October 31, 1517), he explained:
I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions that the people have conceived from them; to wit, the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say — though the thing is impossible — if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt.
Luther was right to be concerned about these opinions, for none of them are true or correspond to the Church's teaching. Indulgences do not assure one's salvation. Performing the external work of an indulgence (contributing money, in this case) does not automatically free souls from purgatory, nor do indulgences free one from the guilt or the penalties of sin.
The practice of indulgences has changed over the centuries and, like any institution regulated by men, it has been subject to abuse. There were real abuses at the time of the Reformation. In addition to superstitious understandings of what indulgences would do, some preachers were unscrupulous in the raising of money. (Contrary to popular legend, indulgences were never "sold" but were granted as an incentive to support charitable causes.)
It is unfortunate that Luther's response spun out of control and led to progressively graver deviations from Catholic doctrine, in the end producing one of the gravest wounds to Christian unity. It is also unfortunate that the doctrine of indulgences has continued to be misrepresented and misunderstood by both Protestants and Catholics.
What Indulgences Are
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Indulgences are the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (q. 312). This shows the error of one of the misunderstandings that Luther reported: the idea that through indulgences "a man is free . . . from all penalty and guilt." Indulgences do not free one from guilt. They presuppose that the guilt of sin has already been forgiven.
Indulgences deal only with the "temporal punishment due to sins," a concept that many people today are not familiar with. There are consequences of sin that come to us in this world, the world of time. These are called "temporal punishments" in contrast to the eternal punishment of hell.
There is a tendency, particularly in Protestant circles, to think of sin as having only one consequence: guilt and the possibility of hell. If guilt is forgiven, one will go to heaven; if one's guilt is not forgiven, one will go to hell. This is an incomplete view. Scripture tells us that that guilt is not the only result of sin. The book of Hebrews contains a meditation on the fact that God still rebukes and disciplines his children in order to produce holiness in them, stating that "he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" even though "for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant" (Heb. 12:10-11).
The Nature of Punishment
Divine punishments both temporal and eternal — have often been viewed as calamities deliberately inflicted by God on account of sin. God condemns people to hell the way a judge condemns people to prison. In the case of temporal punishments, God inflicts these the same way parents punish children.
Scripture uses similar images. The parable of the sheep and the goats depicts Jesus judging the nations and telling the goats to depart into eternal fire (Matt. 25:32-46), and Hebrews 12 compares the way that God disciplines us to the way our earthly fathers did. But parables contain symbolic elements, and these comparisons and metaphors have their limits. Recent reflection on the mercy of God has led some to question whether these images need to be understood differently.
In what may be a point of doctrinal development, the Catechism of the Catholic Church warns us away from understanding eternal or temporal punishment on the model of externally inflicted vengeance:
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. (CCC 1472)
Eternal punishment results from being made "incapable of eternal life" by "the very nature" of grave sin. Temporal punishment is understood as a purification from the "unhealthy attachment to creatures" that even venial sin involves (e.g.. too much attachment to food or drink or sex) and also flows from the nature of sin rather than the external imposition of a penalty.
The Role of Grace
One may well ask how, if divine punishments are not inflicted from without but are intrinsic to sin, they can be remitted. It is easy to see how a punishment can be remitted if it is being inflicted externally. If a judge sentences someone to prison, he can overturn the sentence. If parents ground their children, they can rescind the punishment. But if a penalty follows from the internal logic of the offense itself, how can it be remitted?
By God changing the person so that the consequence no longer follows.
In the case of eternal punishment, God gives sanctifying grace to the guilty person, making him again capable of eternal life. In the case of temporal punishments, God can cure the disordered attachment to created things that such punishments are meant to address, avoiding the need for a painful purification. Presumably, this is what indulgences do in the Catechism's understanding.
When remitting temporal punishments, the Church draws on the infinite merits of Jesus Christ. It also draws upon the prayers and good works of all the saints, for there is "a supernatural solidarity whereby the sin of one harms the others just as the holiness of one also benefits the others" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 4).
The Role of the Church
God's intervention through indulgences involves the action of the Church. God has made the Church his instrument for dispensing grace and regulating the spiritual lives of the faithful. He bestowed the power of the keys on Peter (Matt. 16:19) and gave him and the apostles the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).
He also told them, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). God gave us the Church to get us to heaven; the power to forgive and retain sins is principally concerned with the remission of the eternal penalty for sin. But that is not its only function.
God also gave us the Church to help us cultivate holiness in this life. Over the course of time, the Church began to offer indulgences for pious actions, such as saying prayers, reading Scripture, making pilgrimages, and supporting causes such as the building of churches or the endowment of hospitals. These things are good in themselves, and by offering an indulgence as an incentive to do them, the Church gave individuals a reason to school themselves in holiness and grow in sanctification.
Although the history of indulgences is controversial and many misconceptions still exist, they remain one way the Church encourages Christians to cultivate "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).
How to Get an Indulgence
In 1967, Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina, which established new norms for the use of indulgences. This document introduced the classification of indulgences as partial or plenary — a simplification of an earlier system of reckoning how many "days" of penance an indulgence represented that led some to suppose that an indulgence represented getting a certain number of days "off" their time in purgatory.
Partial indulgence: Granted by the Church to "the faithful who at least with a contrite heart perform an action to which a partial indulgence is attached." These individuals "obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church" (ID, norm 5).
Plenary indulgence: "It is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intentions of the supreme pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent" (norm 7).
The conditions may be performed "several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work" (norm 8). The document also established that a single confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences. Praying for the pope's intentions can be satisfied by saying a prayer of one's own choosing, but it is also fulfilled by saying an Our Father and a Hail Mary (norm 10). "All attachment to sin, even venial sun" means a complete exclusion of sin by the action of the will. It does not mean the elimination of all temptation or concupiscence from one's soul for, as Pope Paul notes, "all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins" (ID 3). There is a limit of a single plenary indulgence per day, except in case of death (norm 6).
A special plenary indulgence is granted for the dying. This is normally included in the last rites, but in the event a priest is not present, the Church grants a plenary indulgence to the faithful "at the point of death, provided they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime" (norm 18).
Both partial and plenary indulgences can be applied either to oneself or to the departed by way of prayer (norm 3).
The Church's official book of indulgences is known as the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, or the Handbook of Indulgences. The Apostolic Penitentiary also periodically announces indulgences for special occasions, such as World Youth Day, the World Day of the Sick, and anniversaries of Vatican II. Indulgences listed in the Enchiridion include prayers, the reading of Scripture, and eucharistic adoration.
Jimmy Akin is Catholic Answers' director of apologetics, a frequent guest on Catholic Answers Live, and author of Mass Confusion: The Do's and Don'ts of Catholic Worship (available at www.catholic.com).
“That is why I have always said we do not know the half of it, but we should only preach from scripture which is plain and to the point.”
You don’t think some supernatural occurrences are communications from God?
You don’t think some supernatural occurrences are communications from God?
But people tend to only take their own serious and no one else`s and maybe that is because they are personal.
But I believe we are only to preach Christ`s Gospel.
“But I believe we are only to preach Christ`s Gospel.”
What about, “And one more way I know it’s true is that I have His word for it.”
What about, “And one more way I know it’s true is that I have His word for it.”
“What do you know is true? you lost me.”
I was assuming that, if you had a mystical experience, it further confirmed some article of faith.
I was assuming that, if you had a mystical experience, it further confirmed some article of faith.
“Yes it sure did that, thanks.”
And you don’t witness?
And you don’t witness?
Paul said you must have two or three witnesses to establish any word
In the case of miracles.
Acts 1
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Jesus had to have 12 witnesses to the resurrection which was a miracle.
John 4
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.
John 4
48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
Jesus had 12 witnesses as to who he was so do we need miracles to believe in him?
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
As far as the witnessing goes,I believe I saw an angel one night as I was walking down the street.
To make a long story short I was hungry and there was a café ahead of me abut 50 feet which I had already checked and found it closed.
There was an alcove I guess is what you would call it, you walked in the first door and was in an in closer and then the main door.
A man was coming from the other direction and I noticed he was wearing a sort of wide brimmed city hat and a rain coat, this was in 1970 and the hat was of a style 20 years before that.
He opened the outer door and walked in but since he did not come back out I thought I must have been mistaken about it being closed so I walked in about 5 or 10 seconds behind him.
The alcove was only about 6 feet square, he was not there and the café was still closed, he would not have had the time to unlock it go in and relock it and disappear inside as the complete inside was visible from the out side.
After this a few other weird things happened which could be explained and I believe they happened in order to convince me that the first thing could also be explained.
I was perfectly innocent in the above matter but generally these things happen when I am not at my best behavior.
“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” James 1:26,27
We are not to advertise the stupid things we do and most of my witnessing would include stupid things, so what kind of a witness would that be?
People who are whole so to speak only need the word of our savior, it is people who are in bad trouble that may need shaken up.
“We are not to advertise the stupid things we do and most of my witnessing would include stupid things, so what kind of a witness would that be?”
I don’t know what you may have done, so I can’t really say. However, I was thinking of something like, “God really does forgive us, because he showed up and told me so.”
“People who are whole so to speak only need the word of our savior, it is people who are in bad trouble that may need shaken up.”
Perhaps your experiences might be the spark that ignites faith in someone else.
21st century Americans who have a supernatural experience are mostly inclined to hush up about it.
Thanks for posting. I think the following is the true meat of the lesson:
“God also gave us the Church to help us cultivate holiness in this life. Over the course of time, the Church began to offer indulgences for pious actions, such as saying prayers, reading Scripture, making pilgrimages, and supporting causes such as the building of churches or the endowment of hospitals. These things are good in themselves, and by offering an indulgence as an incentive to do them, the Church gave individuals a reason to school themselves in holiness and grow in sanctification.”
When we read this and then the requirements for obtaining an (plenary) indulgence, it becomes quite clear that indulgences aren’t some kind of “get out of hell” card. They are a means to help the usually selfish (which are most of us myself included of course) to be more holy, not by some magical means but by cooperating with the Grace of God and those in the Body who came before us. Cooperating meaning we still have to do something. And what is it?
It’s something that, by doing anyway, one will already become more holy, less sinful, more oriented towards God. Confession. The Eucharist. And prayer. If one does these things (especially the Confession part) sincerely, with a love for God and a hate for sin, then one will already be a better person! So it’s not some magical secret formula that some critics seem to imply.
The true power of the Indulgence comes from and is directly proportionate to how much one cooperates with and has a desire for God. The amount of money donated (if any, many don’t even involve charitable donations) is irrelevant.
It’s no more than a simple dedication to Him at its root. Who could have a problem with re dedicating one’s life to God? Only the evil and/or ignorant that’s who.
To be clear what Colofornian posted was *never* the case for the Church Universal.
Please note the words “Church Universal”. The quote posted was certainly the teaching and practice of some who were quite deluded at the time. But it was never a universal teaching of the Church. This is where Luther erred, by assuming his experience was the experience and teaching of all, and where some continue to err today assuming errors and lies and misconceptions are what the Church teaches to all. (Universally).
This is the point Aikin was making when he wrote “The practice of indulgences has changed over the centuries and, like any institution regulated by men, it has been subject to abuse. There were real abuses at the time of the Reformation. In addition to superstitious understandings of what indulgences would do, some preachers were unscrupulous in the raising of money. (Contrary to popular legend, indulgences were never “sold” but were granted as an incentive to support charitable causes.)”
There were indeed unscrupulous evil people in the Church then as there are now. This does not automatically negate the truth claims she makes however. It’s a logical fallacy to suggest it does.
21st century Americans who have a supernatural experience are mostly inclined to hush up about it.
In demonstrating how the mule would work he first took a two by four and wacked the mule over the head explaining that getting the mules attention was the first step.
God can get our attention in that same way but then do we preach the word of God or do we talk of our experience which people may or may not believe.
While I do not believe there is anything wrong with relating experiences, ( if I did I would not be doing it ) I believe my experiences are because that is what I needed.
God knows who his people are but some times and I believe quite often they do not know it.
Paul is a good example in this case, he was not a believer in Jesus and in fact he was an anti Jesus, God got his attention.
1 tim 1
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;
1 Corinthians 9
9 Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
There may have been many people especially in Asia doubting Paul because they did not believe the experience he told about because it was only his word.
And it was obviously being questioned in Corinth which is why he was being examined.
We don`t know what the problem was but since I have some doubt about Pauls word on his experience I believe it is likely.
So fine, we can tell people about our experiences but don`t expect them to take it as gospel because after our experience we are to preach the word of God instead of our experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.