He who holds the keys to the kingdom - the Catholic practice of granting indulgences

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.”

It does no such thing. Matthew 28:1 says: "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen and the other May went to see the sepulchre."

Matthew 28:1 in the Greek

Matthew 28 from the Douay-Rheims

Matthew from the Vulgate

Matthew 28 from the King James

You will see that all say "Late on Sabbath". Remember, my friend....and I do consider you one, the dawning of the new day in Hebrew terms meant sunset....as that is when the new day began. Dawning also means beginning. You can also check the text here. Use the interlinear section.....this text actually says "as it was getting "dusk".

suddenly all ashere to tortured linguistic go-arounds for the perfectly plain meaning of the text! It's nearly impossible to argue sensibly against such a mindset, as it is rooted in pure emotionalism driven by illogical zealotry.

Your problem is understanding the meaning of the Church - the Bride of Christ. You view it as an institution, a corporate entity - one in fact that replaces the function of Christ here on earth. The Church, however, is one body in Christ, with Christ at its head, with the Scriptures as it's measure of faith and the Holy Spirit as Christ's substitute here on earth, to strengthen us, to guide us and to reveal the will of God in the Scriptures to us. The oneness is formed by a common acceptance as Jesus as our Lord and Savior, not through belonging to a particular corporate entity.

If Hell is not a permanent state, then what do these words mean: "...thrown into Hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"? (Jesus Christ, in Mark 9:48)

The term "Hell" used here is the Greek "Gehenna". This was indeed a garbage dump outside of the city. It was common to throw deceased criminals and indigents into these "eternal" fires as an excellent way of disposing the dead bodies. The worms spoken of were indeed "mortal" worms which helped in the disposition of the refuse.....and the fires never went out as they constantly had new fuel given them.

Notice Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 that both body and soul can be destroyed in the "Gehenna" fire!

XS>It does not mean a building nor does it mean a man-made corporation nor a city-state.
c>Correct! But it is a visible, discernible entity, founded by Christ,
guided by the Holy Spirit preserved from error.
It is the final authority in the faith and it is One,
not many, not divisible and not superseded by
personal interpretation, not matter how learned.
It is the authority, ordained by Christ that He chose
to work through, chose to give us the complete
canon of Scripture and the fullness of revelation.
........
He gave us a Church first for a reason;
think on it, meditate on it, and pray on that simple fact.

161 posted on 02/18/2006 10:31:56 PM MST by conservonator

I think you are missing the mark.
Y'shua came to provide a means to salvation
for all mankind not just for His Chosen people.
His name Y'shua or His full name Yahushua
As Yahu-shua means literally "YHvH saves"

Psalm 118:14 YHvH is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation.
Those who have been "called out" (ekklesia)
to gather to praise His Holy Name are the church.
Praise His Holy Name!
The Name above all other names.

Romans 10:3 For not knowing about God's righteousness
and seeking to establish their own,
they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
I ask you to believe and accept Y'shua as your L-rd and savior.

b'shem Y'shua

I do trust the Lord, show me where my understanding of scripture and salvation are wrong using scripture, and you might have a case with me, but catholic writings are just that, "catholic writings". They hold no weight with me, they have compromised the Word far to much. At no place in the word does it list the commission of the Catholic church, nor authority of a "pope", or cardinals. Nor do the scriptures allow for the worship of Mary, nor the "saints". In fact Peter himself commanded that early saints were not to bow to him. Why then the practices of bowing to statues "Graven images by the way" and or statues of Mary. Praying to saints, while clutching medals of saints. A man "the pope" being able to absolve someone of their sins. I could go on, but I think my point is proved. If the Catholic church is the one true church, why then do they disobey the scriptures, and or take their own initiative in the scriptures? Bring me scripture to prove me wrong, or concede the point.

A man "the pope" being able to absolve someone of their sins.

Let’s start right here.

“On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." John 20:19-23

First, note the phrase “he breathed on them” There is only one other place in the Bible where God breathes on man – “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7 So, from Scripture alone, you see that something special is going on here. Christ is giving certain men the power to forgive sins.

You can also see elsewhere in Scripture that this was so. For example, in James “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” James 5:14-15 Here, James makes it clear that certain people in the Church – not just anyone – have special powers. The prayer offered by the priests (men) resulted in the forgiveness of sins. If these men did not have special powers, why did James not ask anyone to pray over the sick?

And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." John 20:19-23

When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon's Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

Very apparent that the Lord made the man walk. It is also apparent that these gifts were imparted to the Apostles to give them the authority to spread the gospel. Are these gifts still extant? For a church steeped in Apostolic tradition does the pope use an interpreter when he speaks before certain crowds? When the crowd has people of differing languages can they understand the pope in there own language when he does not address them in that language. When Terry Shivo lay in the coma why did the pope not heal her and establish his authority as a successor to Peter? Why could he only appeal for sparing her life? Which of the gifts given by the Lord to the Apostles are still extant?

After the resurrection of Christ "the Lord" on Sunday, Sundays were henceforth referred to as "the Lords day, "please see Revelations 1;10"

I don't know if you read my post #181 or not, but in it I proved from scripture using the Greek, the Latin, the Douay, and the King James that our Saviour came out of the tomb on a Sabbath (read Saturday) late afternoon. The Lord was not resurrected on a Sunday....so the reason for the move to Sunday worship was for some other reason.

In Revelations 1:10 the term "The Lord's Day" does not mean Sunday! Notice in Revelation 4:1 a voice said to John..."Come up here" and at once I was in the Spirit! John was having a vision of The Day of The Lord. He was being brought forward in time to witness that great event called The Day of the Lord!

No, Sunday was another day....called The Venerable Day of The Sun!

I asked you to show where a fire has been burning for 2,000 years, will continue to burn forever, and a worm that has lived for 2,000 years and will not die for your meaning to be true.

During the time of Jesus this fire had already been burning for quite some time....going back to II Kings 23:10. Evidently this fire will be burning during the Millennium also according to Isaiah 66:24. The Greek translation as well as the Hebrew defines this fire as Unquenchable....in other words, they weren't put out....but could burn out. Now, if I understand your point, I don't know if they are still burning today but that's not what the Greek says. See the Bible in Basic English version...it says the fire is not put out.

Now, for the term, "their worm dieth not". Each individual, cast into the Gehenna fire either burned right up or depending on where it came to rest in the valley, began to decompose. If it did not burn up, it rotted until there was nothing left.....and the worm (maggots) did not die. A good example of this would be Ecclesiastes 3:20. The Lord was not talking about an immortal worm.

Acts 2:37-38

Clearly Peter does not forgive the sins of the people in this passage:

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Christ clearly is recorded as having forgives sins (Matt. 9:6). Can you point to me an instance where Scripture records that anyone other than Christ forgives sins?

Look at what you wrote – Peter baptizes them and their sins were forgiven. Would their sins have been forgiven if a man – Peter – did not baptize them? I gave another example in post. Perhaps you missed it. I’ll repeat it here:

‘You can also see elsewhere in Scripture that this was so. For example, in James “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” James 5:14-15 Here, James makes it clear that certain people in the Church – not just anyone – have special powers. The prayer offered in faith by the priests (men) resulted in the forgiveness of sins. If these men did not have special powers, why did James not ask anyone to pray over the sick?

Christ is the source of forgiveness. In 2 Cor 5:17-20, Paul explains how the apostles are the ambassadors of Christ’s work of reconciliation. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.” Now the question is, did Christ establish His Church, empower the apostles with extraordinary gifts, and expect the world to be converted in the lifetime of the apostles? Christ was not stupid. He knew it would take time. That is why he established His Church, that will teach absolute truth, and against which the power of Hades will not prevail.

So my friend in Christ, two questions for you:

1. What is the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ if not the sacrament of Penance?

2. Where does the Bible say that the Bible contains everything you need for salvation?

So Salvation is through an act not through faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross? You refuted your own contention when you concluded Christ is the source of forgiveness - no one else can confer it. Sins are forgiven when Christ is accepted as one's Savior and the Spirit indwells you not when your are physically baptized. The most ridiculous example of thinking that the act itself confers forgiveness is when Constantine waited until his death bed to be baptized, thereby covering the entirety of his lifetime's sins.

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.