The religion you describe here is unrecognizable. Which is it supposed to be?
Really? LOL. Well let's take a walk and see if you can recognize it after I quote your church council.
"Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death." (Vatican 2, Vol. 1, p. 63)
"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed." (Vol. 1, p. 64)
"Following in Christ's steps, those who believe in him have always tried to help one another along the path which leads to the heavenly Father, through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation .... They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others. They were convinced that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God who is the Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma called the Communion of Saints." (Vol. 1, pp. 65 and 66)
..This is in stark contrast to Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
But there is more from Hebrews that ought to really open some Catholic eyes..
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
[23] [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
[28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
It says here that Christ doesn't offer himself often but rather ONCE. Back to your Council. "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 minister of Redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints." (Vol. 1, p. 75)
Ther's your treasury of grace being discussed.
I might add that the debate I discussed earlier deals with this and Matatics goes further than what I said. If people want some real eye openers it's all there.
Still having a hard time recognizing your own doctrines? Or do we need to post more? That Vat II link is a real eye opener, huh. Probably a real good memory jogger too.
Scripture says we have eternal life, not that it is doled out to us from a treasury of Grace put back by people expiating their own sin and dumping the leftovers of their good works en banc for the church to pass out and cover what it says Christ didn't finish. Yes I know you'll say the work on the Cross is done. Your church just says that and then dogmatizes these things you see, thus preaching one thing and putting on a public face to keep up appearances. Matatics, as I've said, is more damning than this. And even worse, I've heard Hunt's other debates wherein he debates someone who says that Christ didn't pay for our salvation on the cross in full. All those debates are on WinMX. If you like, I'll listen and tell you the name of the one it is. But I'm sure you'll tell us Rome doesn't teach that either or maybe you'll fail to recognize that too.. who knows.
The religion you describe here is unrecognizable. Which is it supposed to be?
Maybe this will help.
F. Indulgences
The new theory of confession, particularly, the idea of attrition, gave new force to one of the most popular developments of the middle ages.
Indulgences.
1. Crusades Urban II, 1095 at Clermont. But it was not clear what he meant. Most probably thought it was complete forgiveness of sins. But that was not acceptable to the theologians. So they developed a theory.
2. Theory a. Treasury of Merit
b. Keys of the Kingdom
c. Temporal Punishment Idea comes from canonical penance. The days and years are or bread an water, while alive, not years in Heaven. But it got attached to the idea of time in purgatory. [Catholics believe in prayer for the dead leads to a need for a place neither heaven nor hell. Ref. First Book of Maccabees]
3. How to obtain an indulgence Do a pious act - Crusades etc. Pay money Development of indulgence hawkers in late middle ages.
4. Indulgences and the Dead. In late 14th century - you could apply indulgence to the dead, as a pious act. People start buying indulgences for dead relatives.
5. Popes begin to collect money by selling indulgences -Build St. Peters that way. -Leads to Luther.
Fordham University - Indulgences - Treasury of Merit