Posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:32 AM PST by NYer
For many modern Catholics, the practice of granting indulgences to hasten the path through purgatory to heaven is thought to have been ended by Vatican II. Under Benedict XVI there has been a revival – and it is one which tells us much about papal authority
“When a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.” Every good Protestant who is old enough to have grandchildren will recognise these words. They are attributed to a sixteenth-century German friar, Johann Tetzel OP, who actually sold indulgences to help finance the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. It was this abuse that ignited the rage of Martin Luther, who in 1517 helped launch the Protestant Reformation.
Many Catholics today, at least those on the progressive wing of the Church, probably never give indulgences a second thought. The notion that by securing an indulgence – quite simply the removal of the temporal punishment of sins that have already been forgiven by the Church – one can secure a fast track to heaven seems curiously outmoded to many. It is an aspect of Catholic life that belongs, if not to the Middle Ages, to the pre-Vatican II era.
But now there is clear evidence that indulgences are very much back at the heart of Catholic life as seen from the Vatican. In his first 10 months of office, Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly – and surprisingly – granted a plenary indulgence in connection with three major ecclesial events: last year’s World Youth Day, the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, and the recent World Day of the Sick.
So what should we make of such recommendations? Has the Church taken a step backwards? Or have indulgences continued to exist, but been quietly ignored? In fact it can be argued that Benedict’s interest in indulgences tells us a great deal about how he perceives his own authority and that of the Church.
In classic Catholic teaching, forged between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the practice reflects the belief that pastors can “set the individual free from the vestiges of sin by applying to him or her the merits of Christ and the saints” – what has been called the “treasury of the Church”. Basically, an indulgence – either partial or plenary (full) – allows one to reduce his or her “time” in purgatory or apply this grace to someone else who is already deceased. In order to obtain a plenary indulgence one must perform the prescribed task, plus go to sacramental confession, receive Eucharistic Communion, and pray for the Pope’s intentions.
The Council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1562, not only outlawed the selling of indulgences but also roundly condemned Martin Luther as well: “The Church… condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” This same formula was re-stated, verbatim, by Pope Paul VI in 1967, some two years after the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which – significantly – had chosen not to issue condemnations or anathemas.
The practice of indulgences was never really addressed at Vatican II. And yet, some four decades later, a good number of Catholics – and many Protestants, too – continue to hold rather firmly but equally erroneously to the notion that the Council did away with indulgences – or, at least, severely altered them. It was actually Pope Paul who oversaw the “revision” of the practice. But the formula that Paul devised was only a partial reform that satisfied neither the Neo-Tridentines (such as the schismatic Lefebvrists) nor the so-called “progressives” more sympathetic to Luther’s position.
Shortly after his election as Bishop of Rome in 1963 Paul VI formed a commission to revise the practice of indulgences. The findings, in a text called the Positio, were sent to the all the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences in June 1965. The main thrust of the paper was to link the indulgence with the interior attitude of the believer and his or her action rather than with a place (such as a shrine or church) or an object (perhaps a holy medal).
Further, the numerical calculation of partial indulgences (for example, reducing a fixed number of days or years from purgatory) was to be banned and inflation of indulgences in general curtailed. This means that only one plenary indulgence could now be gained per day.
When the bishops arrived in Rome later in the autumn of 1965 for the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council the conference presidents were asked to state their views on the Positio, but when they did there was outrage among some. The feisty Antiochan Patriarch of the Melchites, Maximos IV, urged that indulgences be suppressed outright, saying they were “not only without theological foundation but the cause of innumerable grave abuses which (had) inflicted irreparable evils on the Church”.
Then the German bishops added fuel to the fire. The Archbishop of Munich – Cardinal Dopfner – stated unabashedly: “The idea of a ‘treasury’ that the Church ‘possesses’ leads all too easily to a materialistic or quasi-commercial conception of what is obtained by indulgences.” He recommended that the Positio be scrapped and that a group of international theologians (Karl Rahner was one such he had in mind) be selected to re-write it.
The Pope formed his new commission and in early 1967 issued the Apostolic Constitution, Indulgentiarum Doctrina – which looked similar to the original Positio. The new document said that a believer could gain the indulgence only by fulfilling three obligations: by doing the prescribed work, by having the proper disposition (attitude of the heart) while doing the work, and by acknowledging the authority of the Pope in the process.
Indulgentiarum Doctrina was in effect a restatement of the medieval Catholic doctrine of indulgences, with more personalistic language common in the theology of the initial post-Conciliar period. (This remains a criticism of the neo-Tridentines today.) And yet the anathema of Trent is still there. Partial indulgences were no longer calculated by days and years and the number of plenary indulgences was reduced. Yet critics from the other end of the spectrum are perhaps still most disturbed that indulgence theology likens divine justice to human justice and its need for reparation.
More than a change in practice, the early post-Conciliar period saw a change in attitude. But all that began to change still further with the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and his heavy emphasis on traditional devotional practices.
In his 1998 bull for the Holy Year – Incarnationis Mysterium – the Polish Pope made the indulgence a “constitutive part” of the Church’s Jubilee celebrations, which bewildered some Protestants, for in the same document the Pope also sought to give an ecumenical flavour to the event. The World Alliance of Reform Churches’ (WARC) representative on the ecumenical commission for the Jubilee – Waldensian Pastor Salvatore Ricciardi – was one of the more ardent protesters. The bull “seems wholly untouched by the events which shattered western Christianity in the sixteenth century”, Ricciardi wrote in October 1998, and then withdrew from the commission.
Receiving the indulgence “is not automatic, but depends on our turning away from sin and our conversion to God”, Pope John Paul said at a general audience in September 1999. “The paternal love of God does not exclude chastisement, even though this always should be understood in the context of a merciful justice which re-establishes the order violated,” he said.
The late Pope also issued a new manual that added a fourth way people could “gain” indulgences: by giving public witness of their faith by their frequent participation in the sacraments or by proclaiming the faith through word or example to someone who does not believe.
“If you die immediately after receiving a plenary indulgence, you go directly to heaven,” said Fr Ivan Fucek SJ at the Vatican press conference that unveiled the book.
Then after the Holy Year the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity invited representatives from WARC and the Lutheran World Federation to a two-day discussion on indulgences. Participants expressed satisfaction with the meeting and a Vatican official said there would be follow-up sessions. But to this date, there have been none.
Since then Pope Benedict has indicated that he will make indulgences much more visible than his immediate post-Conciliar predecessors. There are good reasons for this. Theologically, the Pope seems to be emphasising the medieval doctrine – codified at Trent – of the “economy of salvation” and the necessity of the Church. And politically he is making direct appeal to those Catholics – both those still in communion with Rome and those like the Lefebvrists that are in schism – who feel the practice of indulgences and the doctrine of Purgatory have been almost irreparably minimised.
But by revising the granting of the indulgence, Pope Benedict is actually doing nothing new at all. But the words of Paul VI in his 1967 document might offer a further clue to the new Pope’s motives: “We ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the Church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of Blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven. To them the Saviour himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and ruling his Church.”
Another reading.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/peteprim.htm
Did Peter Have The Primacy?
There is little doubt that Peter was a very important and influential figure in the early Christian church. He was one of The Lord's apostles, as ultimately chosen directly by The Father (Matthew 20:23). He, along with the others, spent years learning and traveling with Jesus. It was courageous Peter who single-handedly attempted to defend The Lord from the mob That Fateful Night. Peter would have been a good and loyal friend for anyone.
Peter's bold and impetuous personality often made him the first to step into a situation, and the first to speak. The Lord's answers to the other apostles' questions, as recorded in the Bible, were often directed toward the very forward Peter for this reason.
But, did Jesus Christ actually appoint Peter over the other apostles? And more importantly, was the Christian church founded on Peter, or on Jesus Christ? What does The Bible really say about it?
Let's take a close look at all of the pieces of the picture -
When John and James' mother asked Jesus to place her two sons in a high position, and the other ten apostles "became indignant about it" (Matthew 20:24), The Lord's response was -
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you." (Matthew 20:25-26)
The apostles would be given great positions of responsibility, as we shall see below, but not over each other.
In the famous "keys to the Kingdom" verse, although Peter was the first to speak up, The Lord was talking to all of the twelve disciples gathered there before Him -
"I will give you [plural] the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Then He warned His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ (Matthew 16:19-20).
Once again, as we shall see below, Jesus stated that the apostles would be given tremendous authority, but not over each other.
Peter's name Cephas meant a small rock, but Jesus throughout The Bible, past (see Rock Of Ages) and future (see The Kingdom of God) is referred to as The Rock -
"On this Rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18)
The Rock on which the Christian church would be built on is Jesus Christ. That is what the events of the entire Bible lead to, or away from. What mere sinful human could ever take the place of The Son of God?
Peter never exalted himself over the other apostles before Christ's Crucifixion, and later, after Jesus' Resurrection when the church was becoming popularly established, he remained a very prominent, but humble servant of God -
"As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself." (Acts 10:25-26).
So just what was, and will, be the role of Peter and the other apostles? The answers are plainly found in your Bible -
Jesus Christ stated very clearly the future office of Peter and the other 11 apostles -
"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as My Father conferred one on Me, so that you may eat and drink at My Table in My Kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:28-30)
Each of the apostles will rule over individual tribes of Israel - 12 apostles for 12 tribes.
Which tribe will Peter rule over? The apostle Paul answered that question for us -
"They saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, Who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles". (Galatians 2:7-8)
And so what of the future? In the new Jerusalem we read -
"And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Revelation 21:10-14)
And just where did the tradition of "Peter at the pearly gates" come from? In further describing the above new Jerusalem, of which Peter will be one of the twelve foundations, and will have charge of one of the twelve gates, we read -
"The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl." (Revelation 21:21)
The celebration of Easter varied. Who denies this? But the Council of Nicaea, held in 325, regularized the feast day to be universally observed along the pattern of the Church at Rome, the matter was settled, and the Church moved on. Nothing doctrinal was at stake, it was merely a matter of custom needing to be regularized.
As for your question on the Sabbath day, the answer is simple: the Church decided that the people would meet in common on the first day of the week - the day of the Lord, commemorating His resurrection. Exactly *when* was this decided? Who knows? It was already an established sustom in St. Paul's time. St. Paul is involved in two things that are clues.
First, in Acts 20:7 St. Paul is in Troas, where the Christian community gathered together to break the Bread on the first day of the week (Sunday).
Second, you will note that in 1Corinthians 16:02, St. Paul solicits an *ongoing* collection to be taken up for the Christian community in Jerusalem. This is to be undertaken for successive weeks before his arrival in Corinth, and it is to be taken up "on the first day of every week." Why? Because THAT'S the day the Christians are assembling *anyway* for the breaking of the Bread.
A third clue comes from Revelation 1:10, when St. John talks about being in the Spirit on "the Lord's day." This was Sunday. Among other VERY early witnesses to this fact is St. Ignatius of Antioch, who, on his way to martyrdom in 107 AD, writes to the church in Magnesia, and speaks about, "no longer observing the Sabbath (Saturday), but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also Our Life rose again" (obviously a reference to Sunday). (Letter to the Magnesians, 9) There are other references to the Sunday vs. Saturday issue among the Fathers, and they all speak of it as a long since settled matter. I don't have them handy now, but I know there is something in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in St. Justin Martyr's writings. Both of these are second Century.
I would grant that the three Biblical citations are nowhere near "proof-text" grade stuff. But that underscores two points. First, the Church VERY early on had evidently decided on Sunday to have their agape meal. The decision came so early that there is no direct mention of it in the New Testament. It was already established practice by the time St. Paul and the other NT writers wrote their letters to the various churches; the people already knew about it through "oral tradition," and it was not necessary to belabor what they already knew. Second, while there is at least shadowy evidence for an early Sunday worship in the NT based on the references cited, there is NOTHING else subsequent to this in any Christian writing, council or whatever, that *determines* Sunday to be the day of worship. That in itself points to such an early beginning of the Sunday worship day that it must go back to the Beginning. As this is likely, it also raises a third point: here is some evidence that not *everything* known about the first-generation Christian Church can be found in the New Testament, as some seem to believe.
Bottom line: the Church had the authority to bind and to loose "whatsoever" it willed, as granted by Jesus and as led by the Spirit. At some reeeeeeeeaaaaalllllyyy early date, the decision was made to observe the Day of the Resurrection as the new Sabbath day. By the time of the destruction of the Temple, all vestiges of Sabbath worship among Jewish Christian converts had disappeared, and even then, they were really acting as Jews, not Christians, because there was still inner confusion (soon dispelled) as to whether Christianity was within Judaism or a separate religion budding off from it. Before the end of the first Century, there is not a trace of this practice remaining.
Then how is the Truth "one," as you sort of conceded? The very fact that the two of US disagree on fundamental Christianity indicates a lack of "oneness," doesn't it? We are both Christians, yet we cannot both be "right" about things when we differ, and differ we certainly do. Truth is not divided. Therefore, your thesis is unsound. Sure, we are all Christians; in some lowest-common-denominator way, we might find some agreement on certain things. But not the whole package by any means! It's your job, then, to defend your statement, based on the foregoing, obvious circumstances, and cobble together a coherent thesis on how we (the whole body of Christians, of all denominations), divided in our beliefs, nevertheless can lay claim, collectively, to being the "pillar and ground of the Truth." It may also fall upon you, failing in this, to make a coherent case for why unity in belief as a function of the *one* pillar and ground of Truth doesn't matter.
I'm anxious to hear your take on this.
Excellent post. Thanks.
You haven't a chance of defending this on scriptural grounds. That is your own interpretation, doubtless different in specifics from nearly everyone else's opinions, diverse, in turn, as they may be. How is the Church, which is corporate, equivalent to faith? Faith is what the members of the Church *need*, it is not the Church itself. Therefore, it cannot take the place of the Church as the "pillar and ground" of anything.
"I do truly trust the scripture,"
Translation: "I do truly trust my interpretation of the scripture."
"the catholic church was not the only group of practicing Christians."
That's right! There were the Gnostics and others.
Which is it that you have trouble with. Is the Church the Bride of Christ? Is not the Scripture the set of truths that God gave us to live by and it is certainly our faith in Christ which is the foundation of our Salvation?
If you will read my post again, I believe I made myself clear that my "problem" is with your equating the "pillar and gound of the Truth" with "faith," when the plain words of Scripture say it is the Church.
The atoning sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of the Church. If that is so than the Church is comprised of those that have received through faith in Christ the Saving Grace that he has offered. That faith, therefore, is what the Church is based on - the foundation of the Church. I know you would like to reference the RC Church as that foundation.
Except Swaggart or Ike aren't selling "Purgatory" for their offerings.
Not convincing. Ther are numerous things wrong with your source's statement, but it's getting late here on the east coast, and I don't have time to refute the whole thing. A representative refutation will have to suffice to point out the low quality of this man's exegesis.
Your man says that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom to all of the Apostles. This is false. The pronouns involved are singular, as they are also when Jesus gives Peter authority to bind and loose and promises that the same will be ratified by heaven binding and loosing also. Later, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus *does* give a share of the binding and loosing power to the other Apostles (with plural pronouns), but at no point do the Keys to the Kingdom come into play here.
You say "the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the foundation of the Church." Then you say "If so..." This proves it is but your own surmise. I'm not buying it. Please *prove* - from Scripture alone, as that is doubtless your worldview - your contention in your first sentence, something hard to do when you yourself use the qualifier "if" in the very next sentence.
Paul tells us:
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
16Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
Please note that God's Spirit does not indwell those who do not have a saving faith Jesus and His atoning work on the cross.
I just wanted to say to you, that I always read the religious threads, for enlightenment and information, and have always found you to be one of the best informed, and gracious posters, especially when under fire...I am not a Catholic, but have more and more contemplated learning more about the Catholic religion, due in no small part to yours and others knowledgeable posts....aside from what I notice coming from all of you in the form of knowledge, I also take note of your behavior, which is commendable...the influence your religion seems to have on this fine behavior, is noted...
Then my question to you, my friend....what about Matthew 28:1? This is the only place in scripture where it says exactly when Jesus came out of the tomb. If you notice verse 6 "He has risen". This places the resurrection on the Sabbath.... late in the day.
I wondered that ... if it were true that the roman catholics hold the keys ... then, why don't they loose those in hell from their torment? After all, that would be true love for thy neighbor? That would be doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
I mean, if they had the power to loose and all ... :)
My neighbor is Catholic. She is forever receiving cards in the mail from this or that convent asking for "donations in exchange for prayers" or some novelty or another. It ain't just limited to the Swaggart or Rev. Ike.
I have asked before and have not gotten an answer. From a catholic view, what are the keys and where is the kingdom of heaven?
In the New Testament there are 3 words translated Hell. They are Hades; Gehenna; and Tartarus. The people currently in Hell are dead.
The Greek word, Hades, that is translated "Hell" simply means the grave. You will find this for example in Acts 2:31
The Greek word, Gehenna, that is translated "Hell" simply refers to a Garbage dump outside of the city limits of Jerusalem.... where criminals and indigents were disposed of when they died. Jesus also spoke of Gehenna as a place where condemned bodies and their parts ended up.
The Greek word, Tartarus, that is translated "Hell" is spoken only of once....in 2 Peter 2:4 as the place where God had sent sinning Angels, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment. This is also the same place spoken of in Jude 6. This happened when Satan (Lucifer) rebelled against the government of God. Also Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:14.
In all cases these folks who are in "Hell" will be raised at the last day and they will then be judged. In no case is Hell described in the Bible as a place of eternal fire and torment. It is simply a temporary abode of the dead.
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.