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.”

That's true. And a plenary (full) indulgence can only be gained by a person who has cooperated with the grace of God in such a way that there is "freedom from the attachment to sin." That's pretty hard! Being merely in a state of grace is insufficient. Therefore, such a person (and that's probably most even attempting to gain an indulgence), gains a "partial indulgence" for the work at hand. Furthermore, our non-Catholic brethren might be open enough to see how *that* is pretty open-ended in God's favor! Since the indulgence is now "partial," and "partial" is not defined, it is up to *God* to decide what proportion to apply.

The pope and the bishops have control of the keys, but it's *still* God's house. Amen!

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me. I am a realist and have problem sometime with symbolic rituals and statements in religions.

Otherwise, this appears to be "cannabalistic" with some connection to the belief of human sacrifice practiced in pagan religiions. Jesus of course, the last human sacrifice to end all human sacrifices. Jesus was sacrificed for our sins so that we no longer have to give "live" sacrifices. (could this be the similar to ritual that Islamists are practicing today with the suicide bombers they refer to as "martyrs")

Most of us have difficulty thinking about actually eating or drinking "real" blood and flesh, but it did exist but not with Chrisitians, just symbolic. Jesus death is the way we were able to do away with live sacrifices when we committd sins. Never really understood how this decision was accepted other than he was God and he could make such a decision. So, I accept this communion, but symbolic only. I guess since God can do all things, he can make the symbols the real "blood" and "flesh" if he wishes and it is your belief that God does that with each communion, and of course the food is assimilated into our bodies for energy, etc.

Thanks for your guidance.

I would only add here that in NO WAY does the Catholic hierarchy consider itself "successors to God" as twidle posits. God is God. Period. The bishops are merely successors to the Apostles, who were mere men. But men endowed with MUCH authority BY God. The Cliff Notes version of justifying this authority is found in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, but there is much more than that, of course.

At any rate, those Apostles and today's bishops have authority to "bind and to loose" NOT because they are God, but because He who IS God told them they have the authority.

I understand your problem with this and reluctance to consider the Eucharist anything beyond symbolic. It seems cannabalistic to those unfamiliar with it.

But consider that the pagans that were persecuting the early Church *also* didn't understand it, and, by their misunderstanding, actually provide an unintended "witness" to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. They had heard that someone's body and blood were being consumed at Christian rites. Things heard second-hand have a habit of being mangled a bit, so they jumped to the conclusion that babies were being killed and cannabalized by the Christians in their "vile rites." They would not have formed this idea had it not been the case that, in reality, the Christians considered that they *were*, in fact, literally eating the Body and Blood of Christ. Much of the persecution of these Christians derives from the pagan horror of something that was true - the Body and Blood of Christ being consumed - being misunderstood as the type of cannabalism they had heard about among the barbarians.

They therefore provide telling witness to the deeply held Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist in effect from those days to our own time.

Here we go again! You never did answer several persons' questions, on another recent thread, asking point-blank: Did Jesus speak Aramaic to the Apostles or not?

We're not so stupid that we don't know what language the New Testament was writte in! Indeed, Matthew's Gospel was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, as there are far too many Semiticisms in it for things to be otherwise.

But you yourself seem to think the whole thing was written in Hebrew. You prove my point by insisting on Hebraicisms in many of your posts. For example, that the Holy Spirit be referred to as Ruach haKodesh. That, I submit, is NOT Greek.

I'd still like to hear your answer about the language spoken by Jesus in everyday conversation with both the Apostles and the common people He encountered in His ministry.

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me.

* To speak of symbolically about "eating my body and drinking my blood" would mean the wordfs of Jesus here

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

... Really meant....

'WHOEVER PERSECUTES ME AND ASSAULTS ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."

Do you think Jesus intended to say that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him?

See the following for the symbolism of eating and drinking another's blood.

Ps 27:2

Isaias 9:18-20

Micah 3:3:2

Sam 23:15-17

Rev 17:6,16

to symbolically eat someone's flesh and blood is to persecute and assault them.

Even Luther got it right about the Eucharist. "of all the early fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacraments as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expressions as "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as "It is simply bread" or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present" or the like; since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blod are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative arguement should have turned up at least once, as it happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side." (Luther's Works)

*Please reread John Chapter 6. Jesus repeatedly speaks the truth about His real presence in the Eucharist

However we all Know that the Ruach haKodesh breathed all the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek for our understanding

And "We all Know that" how, exactly?

There's nothing in Matthew that says "only the Greek text is authoritative". There's nothing in Matthew that says "I'm writing this in Greek because that's the language the Ruach haKodesh wants me to use, although 'Ruach haKodesh' is Hebrew, and Hebrew seemed perfectly okay for Moses to write Torah, but clearly the rules have changed ..."

There is, however, tradition that is at least 1700 years old that states clearly that Matthew was written in Hebrew (which may mean Aramaic, but certainly doesn't mean Greek), at Jerusalem, for the benefit of Jewish converts.

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me. I am a realist and have problem sometime with symbolic rituals and statements in religions.

Jesus Christ, God, can do anything! Why can't you believe He has substantially changed His Body so that it looks like bread, tastes like bread, digests like bread but is actually Him? He is quite specific in His instructions in the Gospel of John. Many walked away when He gave this command, "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you." He didn't stop as those in the crowd filtered away. He turned to the Apostles and asked them if they were going to split as well. THIS is the key point. What a miracle Catholics receive at each Mass! Think what you are missing!

Beware of asking God to "come down off that cross and save yourself and we will believe in you!" God said it is His Body. I have Faith and I believe. I then ask God that I may understand!

Speaking of Indulgences,

What cracks me up is that some Protestants have told me that Catholic clergy actually instruct the laity NOT to read the Bible. They claim that Catholics don't read the Bible. As someone who went to Catholic Schools for 9 years when growing up, this came as a total surprise to me!! However, after I became an adult, I was shocked to learn that many Protestants are VERY serious and persistent in this belief (or should I say 'mis-belief'??).

Of course there are at least 3 or 4 Bible readings (which change each day) in the Catholic mass, which seems to escape them. In addition, in every Catholic Church I have belonged to, I have always seen Bible studies offered during the week, for those who were interesed in attending.

On top of all of THAT, I look inside the front cover of the New American Catholic Bible I was given as a First Communion gift, and what do I see there? It says that if one sits down and reads the Bible on their own, a partial INDULGENCE is granted. Furthermore, it says that if one continues reading the Bible for more than 30 minutes, a PLENARY INDULGENCE is granted!! Sounds like a good deal to me!! We get an INDULGENCE for doing something that many Protestants claim that only THEY do!!

So, not only do Catholics NOT have to PAY for Indulgences, but they can actually earn them for free - simply by READING THE BIBLE!!

Another thing that I noticed was that this article states that the Council of Trent outlawed the sale of indulgences. While this is probably true, the article makes it sound as if selling indulgences was allowed by the Church before Trent.

From what I have read, this is not true. The Church has ALWAYS forbidden the sale of indulgences. Indulgences have been sold, but from what I have read, such sales were done in violation of Church rules. Indeed, I recall reading that the Church cracked down on the sale of indulgences on various occasions several centuries before the Council of Trent. The article could have done a better job of clarifying this point, as well as a few others.

The online Catholic encyclodpedia has a really good article (but a bit lengthy) which discusses Indulgences. I am sure many of us have already seen it. For those who have not, and want to take the time to read it, it may clear up some misconceptions about what the Catholic Church believes about Indulgences (I know that it did so with me!!):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

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.