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.”
9 posted on 02/17/2006 11:01:07 AM MST by NYer or
Where Y'shua is speaking and says that only He holds the keys to death and Hades: Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead,
Are you unfamiliar with the Holy Word of G-d where Y'shua means
b'shem Y'shua
(Psalm 118-14 ..YHvH.. has become my salvation )
and behold I am alive for ever and ever!
And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Many have claimed to have discovered America. Which ever European you believe discovered it, is up to you, are all Catholic Christians. Leif Ericksen, Christopher Columbus, or St. Brendan the Navigator.
You sure are a glutton for abuse, aren't you?
17 posted on 02/17/2006 11:44:05 AM MST by Theoden
Are you unaware that the Gospels and Epistles Koine Greek was the language that the whole world spoke at the time of Y'shua. Do not take your understanding from Mel Gibson and his movie.
What pray tell does Aramaic have to do with the HOLY WORD OF G-D?
b'shem Y'shua
were breathed by the Ruach haKodesh in Koine Greek
for our understanding.
Amerigo Vespucci ...
The Gospel of Matthew, as you well know, was written in Aramaic
Al Gore discovered America
Do not take this out of context, instead do a word study of "kingdom of heaven".
This will help you to understand.
b'shem Y'shua
And invented the internet, can leap tall buildings in a single bound and is faster than a speeding bullet.
Remember, Scripture isn't a bunch of loose verses and books cobbled together, it is the singular story of the creation, fall and salvation. If you remember that, it helps to put each verse into perspective.
Remember, Scripture isn't a bunch of loose verses and books cobbled together,
it is the singular story of the creation, fall and salvation.
If you remember that, it helps to put each verse into perspective.
31 posted on 02/17/2006 12:36:04 PM MST by conservonator
Use scripture to help exegete scripture.Great! You have taken the first step to understanding the whole counsel of G-d.
b'shem Y'shua
It's not easy. It's never easy to do it right.
If nothing more, it brings home the fact that you can't do it alone!
Still, Jack Bauer could reduce him to tears with just the hint of a scowl
Whatever you do, though, please do not share with the non-Catholics the fact that 24 is a Catholic mind-control plot. We're quite far along in our effort and it would be destructive to let too many in on the secret.
You have to do more than speak the Aramaic language Jesus spoke :)
The Gospel of Matthew, as you well know, was written in Aramaic
27 posted on 02/17/2006 12:22:44 PM MST by bornacatholic
The Gospel was written from a Jewish perspective and The roman church has to insist that it was written in However we all Know that the Ruach haKodesh And the only rock that Y'shua is referring to is Himself.
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18 The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God! Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour. Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. 1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD; 2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the 2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? 2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Saviour! 2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour! Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.' Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy Matthew was a Jew, he spoke Hebrew and probably Aramaic
b'shem Y'shua
and Koine Greek as he was a tax collector for the Roman Empire.
contains many linguistic Hebraism constructs.
Aramaic in order to support their Peter and the Rock theory.
breathed all the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek
for our understanding
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g.
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Catholics live the New Testament.
Correct. They are Jesus' keys. And He *chose* to give them to St. Peter and his successors. "I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and *whatsoever* you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and *whatsoever* you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
If you give me the keys to *your* house and then leave, do I not have control over it? Am I not held accountable by you for what goes on inside it, while at the same time trusted with its upkeep? Can I not allow people into it of my choosing?? Am I not in charge? Notwithstanding that, is it not still *your* house?
Jesus said the words I quoted from Matthew 16:19 for a reason. They are not empty words or spoken merely to sill out the future New Testament. He DID give an Apostle such power. Jesus is also, being God, omniscient. He knew His Church would last considerably beyond the time of Peter's lifespan. His power was given to his successor and all subsequent successors to the present day, for the benefit of each Christian generation that has come after the original one.
A share in this "binding and loosing" power of St. Peter was given to the other Apostles by Jesus in Matthew 18:18. Their successors are our bishops.
The pope and the bishops have the fullness of the priesthood of Christ. Having the power to bind and to loose, they exercise it, in part, through the power to grant indulgences. That abuses of this process have surfaced at times historically is a different issue from saying that the power does not exist. All of the Apostles, and all of their successors, are prone to sin through their damaged human nature. Nevertheless, they still exercise their ministries. We are not Donatists!
At that time in history, Hebrew was spoken only in the Temple. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. That was the common language. Following His death and resurrection, Peter brought the 'good news' first to Antioch. It is in Antioch that the one of the earliest liturgies was developed. The Chaldean, Maronite and Melkite Catholic Churches all retain our Lord's words of Consecration at the Last Supper, in His language - Aramaic.
Consecration in Aramaic
Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh tez seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.
English Translation
On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
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.