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.”
Luke 24;1 "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them" Once again here it is clear. Very early on the first day of the week.
John 20;1 "The first day of the week came, Mary Magdalene early while it was still dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." Once again here it says early on the first day of the week.
I don't think any of us deny that Christ foretold that he would rise again in three days, not two. Study of dates, as well as Jewish and Roman history tells us that Christ was Crucified on Friday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday makes 3 days. If Christ had raised upon the Sabbath, then he would have falsified his own prophecy of his death and resurrection. I respect you, as well as your obvious knowledge on the scriptures, but I have to fundamentally disagree with you on this one.
Blessings, and Respect.
Each one of your examples talks about the women coming to the tomb...not once is the resurrection time line mentioned. It is however in Matthew 28:1. It says simply Late on the Sabbath in both the Greek and the Latin..... and in the Douay and the King James. This is the only place in scripture where it says when....and five verses later it says He is risen!
From what you have posted to me.....how do you reconcile that?
Blessings to you and yours also.
When exactly did th Sabbath end? You know as well as I do that it ended at sundown. Clearly the verse you cited relates to a time after sundown and hence after the Sabbath.
Your typical laundry list of complaints against the Church are based on ignorance of Scripture, tradition and history or just plain straw men. Spend a little time educating your self to what the Church actually teaches in regard to your complaints and why it teaches what it does. If your going to protest against something, at least protest against something real.
Sounds like Protestant bashing to me.
We hear what we want don't we?
As I pointed out in my post #181 the original Greek, Latin, the Douay and the King James all say in Matthew 28:1 "Late on the Sabbath or in the end of the Sabbath". And the Sabbath ended at Sundown.....like you say. Verse six of Matthew 28 says he is risen (past tense). Now if the women are visiting the tomb late on the Sabbath as the new day is "dawning" this would be close to sundown. Everyone on this board knows that the Hebrews began the day at sunset....so the dawning or the beginning of the new day: would be at sundown.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 he would be in the tomb three days and three nights. He went on to say in here, here, here, and here the same thing. We know that he means 72 hours because the Hebrew idiom that counts part of one day as a whole day does not apply when both days and nights are included in the statement.
We know that he was buried at sundown so we also now know that he would be resurrected at sundown. We know from Matthew 28:1 that the sundown of resurrection was the Sabbath and counting backwards 72 hours would place the crucifixion and burial on the 14th of Nisan (Passover) and a Wednesday.
Now you may ask why year 27 A.D.???? I'm tired and going to bed shortly so that will be another story for another day.
By the way, Passover fell on a Wednesday in 30 A.D also.
It's a narrow path, there is one guide and He gave us a Church so that we may better discern that path. Don't walk alone.
So Salvation is through an act not through faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross?
Salvation comes from Calvary.
But no, Scripture shows that salvation is not by faith alone.
"‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’" (Matt. 7:21).
"For he will render every man according to his works . . ." (Rom. 2:6-8).
"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13).
"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).
"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas. 2:17).
"But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).,p> This last quote is the only place in scripture where the words ‘faith’ and ‘alone’ are used together --‘not by faith alone.’ So no, Scripture tells me that salvation is not through an act of faith. It is not ‘either or’, but rather ’both and’
Christ is the source of forgiveness - no one else can confer it.
This is refuted directly by Scripture. Christ directly gave the apostles the power to forgive sins in John 20. Christ established his church and HE created the rules for its workings. He established a priesthood with the power to forgive sins.
Sins are forgiven when Christ is accepted as one's Savior and the Spirit indwells you not when your are physically baptized.
Scripture says otherwise. “Peter 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.” Acts 2:37-39 Peter didn’t say what you believe. Baptism is one way sins are forgiven. After baptism, sins we commit can be forgiven in the way Christ outlined in John 20.
Read this again in context. They have the power to forgive or not forgive. This means that they had to hear the sin being confessed. This is exactly what happens in the catholic sacrament of confession. The plain and clear meaning of this verse doesn’t need all the meanings and distinctions you are putting in to it.
please go back and reread my post, this was human forgiveness, not Divine forgiveness.
I know you may not like it because it shows a major error in your doctrine....but there it is!
You're seeing what you want in order to pursue your new religion, be my guest. But no where, at all, does the verse you cite make any reference to the actual resurrection, only the visit by the two Mary's. If anything , this and all other resurrection accounts make a point of mentioning that the discovery of the resurrection take place on the first day of the week, Sunday.
You and every other professing Christian who share little in common regarding the faith. You haven't answered, because it is impossible to answerer, the simple question: how can modern Protestantism represent the Church since there is no unity in faith to be found among them?
Please, pray on this; we are told to take our disputes the the Church, which is called the pillar and ground of truth, which has final authority, that's what infallible, God-breathed, Scripture tells us to do. How can we do this if the Church is not visible, recognizable, and one? The Church is visible and one because it must by, by it's very nature and charter.
Ah. Now I'm back at work, where I left my Greek New Testament.
Let's see, here. First of all, opse (sorry, I can't put Greek fonts on my work computer), according to Strong's (3796), CAN mean "after the end of." I'd be the first to admit that meta is far more commonly used for after, but that's not too important. The fact is that Matthew 28:1, in the Greek, still says "...te epifoskouse eis mian sabbaton elthen Mariam..." This litterally means :in the dawn towards the first day of the week." Notice "mian sabboton" shows that sabbaton is plural, a convention used by NT writers in Greek to convey the concept of "Week," which heretofore did not exist in Greek. "Sabbaths," by convention, meant "week."
But a better, less ambiguous case can be found elsewhere. In Mark 16:1-2, we find "Kai diagenomenou tou sabbatou Maria he Magdalene kai Maria he tou Iakobou kai Salome egorasan aromata ina elthousai aleipsosin auton. Kai lian proi te mia ton sabbaton erchoutai epi to mneimeion anateilantos tou helion." Translation: "And having passed the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and Mary the (mother) of James and Salome bought spices, so that, having come, they might anoint Him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came upon the tomb, the sun having arisen." Not the plural "mia ton sabbaton" in verse two. Plural construction, indicating a "week," therefor translated as the "first of the week" ie: Sunday. Notice, too, the singular construction in verse one "tou sabbatou" indicating correctly the word for Sabbath (but it had passed (diagenomenou). Similar plural constructions exist in the parallel verses found in Luke 24:1 and John 20:1.
Notice, in all of these passages, the women wait till dark to run off and buy the spices necessary for the annointing. Why? Because, as observant Jews, they would not have been able to travel to get them during the Sabbath and, surrounded by other observant Jews, the spices would have been impossible to buy in any case, the stores all being closed. The Sabbath ended at sundown, and the obstacle to buying the spices was thus removed. In a way, that really serves to clinch the case. It would be certainly unusual, rather inexplicable behavior otherwise.
You make a big deal about four different English translations implying the Sabbath was still "on" in Matthew 28:1. However, the second part of the verse, which inescapably talks about the first day of the week, renders any English peculiarities moot. As it is, the Bible Gateway site - hardly a bastion of Catholic polemics! - has many translations available, and the overwhelming majority of them translate Matthew 28:1 as "after the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath having ended." See for yourself here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=28&version=31
That there might be some variation in English is understandable. The Gospel accounts were written by four men who had to use the Jewish concept of a week in a language that had no native word for it. A convention had to be supplied. it was. But sifferent irregularities can reselt in situations where the same root word is used both for an actual Sabbath and a week, with the pluralization serving to distinguish the two.
At any rate, it seems rather arrogant of modern Sabbatarians to inflict their viepoint on the matter, when FAR more contemporaneous interpretation exists in the writings of many early Christians, who universally equate the Lord's Day with Sunday, in commemoration of the resurrection. As I said in an earlier post, the break from Sabbath observance took plave at a very early date, and there is no exact time known when this was done. By the end of the first century, at any rate, it was already an established fact. Not too deep into the second century, worship on the Sabbath among Jewish Christians not already affiliated with the universal Church had spiralled to extinction.
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.