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.”
39 posted on 02/17/2006 2:02:10 PM MST by magisterium Have the keys been given as the text is future tense.
b'shem Y'shua
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
So it's the church then that has control of purgatory...The church 'binds' people to purgatory but can 'loose' the person if the correct indulgence is met...
Why doesn't the church just skip the binding and loosing and ship everyone to heaven???
NY>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.
40 posted on 02/17/2006 2:08:24 PM MST by NYer We also know that when He read from the Isaiah scroll in the local synagogue, He read from the Septuagint(Koine Greek) We also know that the "Lingua Franca" of the then known world was Koine Greek. We know from scripture that Y'shua spoke Hebrew at age twelve in the temple in Jerusalem.
b'shem Y'shua
Indulgences have never ended as far as I know. I think maybe they grew unpopular, but they have always been there.
Well, it seems obvious enough to me that these words were spoken *before* the Ascension and Pentecost, so Jesus was perfectly able and inclined to hang onto the keys Himself for the moment, thank you! There was no need yet to hand 'em over. He did soon enough though, the first real manifestation of which comes with St. Peter's first big "solo" on the very day of Pentecost, when he started asserting his leadership over the Church and authority over the Jews, 3000 of whom were converted that very day by his words. (Acts 2)
We don't pay for indulgences. They are given freely. That is one of the biggest misunderstandings about the Catholic Church.
Can you be specific about what indulgences were not outlawed. I think you are mistaken.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Catholics are often attacked because they don't take the Bible literally. Yet here is one very clear example of the fact that we do.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Excellent link.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
And here's one you forgot...
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Catholics don't get hungry or thirsty??? No more eating and drinking??? Why don't Catholics take that one literally as well??? It's in the same context...
44 posted on 02/17/2006 2:19:31 PM MST by Jaded
I have been commanded to:
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. I have not been commanded to convert anyone.
b'shem Y'shua
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
PURGATORY
Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:15; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 ... God’s painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:18-20 ... might be purgatory (limbo?).
1 Pet 4:6 ... preached to the dead.
Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:13-14 ... “extra” suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for “that Day.”
1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
Heaven is not locked...There is no key and paddle lock...
Jesus was not referring to a skeleton key...The key Jesus was talking about is knowledge...Christ curcified is the 'key' to the Kingdom of Heaven...
We Catholics don't have to debate what the meaning of "is" is.
When God said, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased" it is the same "is" as "This is My body"
What part of "is" don't you understand?
I think not. Jesus is talking about the keys given to the Prime Minister as seen, for example in Isaiah 22:22 ff. He has made Peter (whose name He changed) the custodian with the power to bind and loose as seen in the Old Testament.
In this regard, the current Holy Father has declared a Plenary Indulgence on three occasions already during his brief Pontificate. This shows that indulgences have never ended and are part of the Church. For a collection of Indulgences, buy a copy of the "Raccolta" which lists the indulgenced prayers prior to 1950.
Please read this carefully, and try to understand:
It is *God* who judges our souls at death, as He alone can read our hearts and inmost thoughts and make proper judgment. The Church cannot do that. However, people, while in this present life, may gain partial or plenary indulgences which can remit the punishment for sins *previously* committed. Notice that indulgences in NO WAY are a license or permission to *commit* future sin. They only have effect on previously comitted sins which have ALSO been previously confessed.
Jesus, in giving the Apostles and their successors the power to "bind and to loose" (Matt. 16:19 and 18:18) and also in giving them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23), has literally ceded over to these men His authority to do these things *in His Name*. His "whatsoever's" in Matt 16 and 18 are serious, and He meant them. He will honor their decisions in the matter of forgiveness of sins.
However, as already stated, only God is really capable of judging our hearts. If the authority to forgive sins is taken advantage of by insincere or untruthful penitents, nothing happens at all, for God knows the situation perfectly, and He will not be mocked. If a person goes through the motions of receiving an indulgence while NOT in a state of grace, *nothing* happens. God will not honor it, because the power of the keys in such instance was abused. Simon Magus had similar problems!
Most indulgences are "partial." Some are only partial by definition, many of the "plenary" (or "full") indulgences are effectively also partial because one of the requirements on the person gaining them is "freedom from the attachment to sin, even venial sin." That's pretty difficult for most of us. Alright, knowing all of the foregoing, God's role in all of this should start crystalizing for you a bit.
First, no matter how many indulgences one gained while in life, if one dies in a state of mortal sin, they have no use to him, and he *will* be damned. Remember, indulgences are no license for *any* kind of sin. God has got the ball here!
Second, if the person in question winds-up in Purgatory, those sins for which a subsequent indulgence made satisfaction do *not* figure-in to that purgation, otherwise, what would be the point to indulgences. Purgatory, for this person would be for any venial sins not confessed before death, OR mortal sins confessed but for which proper satisfaction had not been undertaken in life (including indulgences, of course), OR sins for which "partial" satisfaction was made by indulgenced works or other acts of atonement subsequent to their confession. In all of these cases, God is not dispensed with, however, as irrelevant to the "process,' as if the Church can "ship people to heaven" as you suggest. He alone can assess the "attachment to sin" criterion, for starters. God still makes the assessment as to how "partial" or "plenary" the indulgences really are in the specific circumstances of each person who has gained them.
Third, if the person winds-up immediately in Heaven, it may very well be possible that the difference here was due to some of his sins' temporal punishment already having been removed by indulgenced works. In any case, for a person to "take the express" to Heaven, he would still have to be not only in a state of grace at death (that's a given), but also in a state of perfect detachment from sin and commensurate, selfless love of God. That state of affairs as an end-result of a soul's earthly travail is likely a fairly rare thing, with or without indulgences.
Understand, too, that indulgences are not something *required* of Catholics to seek and gain. Many never avail themselves of this even once. That's a pity. Their road to salvation is restricted to their repentance and confession of sins. God has condescended to share His power to forgive sins to mere men, who act as His representatives. Some certainly, and with good effect (obviously!), take advantage of this, yet neglect a second aspect: He also has entrusted the custodianship of the ability to remit sins to the Church, which holds indulgences out to men that they may take them, while leaving the "details" of their application to God, who *alone* can read true inner dispositions.
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.