Posted on 01/29/2007 6:45:51 AM PST by stfassisi
"No, I am suggesting you find out for yourself what YOUR parish has to say about indulgences and whether or not they will sell you one.
Afraid of the answer?"
I am not afraid of the answer, because the law of the Church is clear on the point. So, if a greedy pastor decided to sell an indulgence (mine wouldn't, but mine wouldn't molest boys either; there ARE some bad men in the priesthood, obviously), he might dupe somebody, but it wouldn't be an act in accordance with the law of the Church, any more than molesting a little boy is.
That said, the whole indulgence thing is a bit uncomfortable. The problem isn't that the Church doesn't have the AUTHORITY to forgive sins and penance periods, etc. Rather, it's that things have been reduced too much to a pat code, sort of like the civil service code for salvation. Now, thanks to the Power of the Keys, the Church DOES have that authority, so indulgences are, technically anyway, effective. So are tambourine masses.
I'd prefer both practices be tucked away into the attic of history as things that, while licit (because the Church has the power, granted by Jesus through Peter and the Apostles, to make them so) the optics are bad. If there were no Enchiridion Indulgentarium the Church would not suffer, but it would be easier to find greater unity with Protestants.
Luther wasn't WRONG about the abuses of the Church, and maintaining a practice that had a really odious past would be like maintaining (Officially, in Official Name) the office of Grand Inquisitioner of Spain. Faith and morals still need to be protected, but not by an officer of that title.
Optics matter.
Indulgences are a stumbling block for some, and that's too bad.
Our preacher had us over for dinner. He made tacos with bear meat. It was very yummy, but I would have liked to have the meat without all the spices, just to gauge its raw flavor.
True. But I have my own personal miracle that constantly shows me that!
I watched Jeremiah Johnson the other night, reminds me of the scene where the old guy Will Geer, rounds up the greenhorn "a Grizz" for skinning. I chase all the bears back into the woods, haven't eaten any.
One example, from www.jewfaq.org, is below.
Really, look into any Jewish source you like, and you will find Gehenna, the Jewish Purgatory. This is not deeply esoteric or secret knowledge.
Can I cite you a council of the Church that said this?
Of course not.
The Church hasn't paid attention to Jews on matters of theology since, oh, about the First Century.
Which is a pity, because some of the things that Jesus said become a whole lot clearer when seen through Jewish eyes.
From www.jewfaq.org:
Gan Eden and Gehinnom
The place of spiritual reward for the righteous is often referred to in Hebrew as Gan Eden (GAHN ehy-DEHN) (the Garden of Eden). This is not the same place where Adam and Eve were; it is a place of spiritual perfection. Specific descriptions of it vary widely from one source to another. One source says that the peace that one feels when one experiences Shabbat properly is merely one-sixtieth of the pleasure of the afterlife. Other sources compare the bliss of the afterlife to the joy of sex or the warmth of a sunny day. Ultimately, though, the living can no more understand the nature of this place than the blind can understand color.
Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba.
Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse.
This 12-month limit is repeated in many places in the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish. See Life, Death and Mourning.
"*Huh. Imagine that. The Church's Teaching IS more understandable than yours. And, it has the advantage of being authoritative..."
Not MY teaching, Bub, Jesus Christ's teaching, in the Gospels.
What you gave me in a long and convulted medieval paragraph Jesus gave me in one single word: Gehenna.
Of course the Church gets around to being right, more or less, because the Holy Spirit doesn't let her err gravely on matters of faith and morals.
But no, that medieval paragraph is most certainly neither as understandable, nor as precise, as Jesus of Nazareth's one word: Gehenna.
"*LOL I am saying your opinion of Christian Doctrine as explicated by the Catholic Church is flat out laugh out loud funny."
Glad to provide you with a source of humor.
And if you had any authority whatever in the Catholic Church, you could then proceed to discipline me, if I gave any cause to (which I didn't). However, as it stands, you and I are both laymen with precisely the same lack of authority.
Therefore if convoluted and lengthy medieval writings convince you more than a single word of Jesus, who am I to say you are wrong?
I have merely repeated a single word of Jesus, and repeated it's Jewish definition, which answers the issue completely.
You are apparently taking issue over authority, and pitting Innocent IV versus Jesus. Considering that they said almost the same thing on the subject (although Jesus said it better) there isn't a conflict over anything but style.
A wise man (or woman) would see that as an opportunity to learn something. Even if one doesn't agree with what one finds there, one can at least learn what other folks actually think and believe. Their actual beliefs, thoughts and practices may well turn out to be very different from what their detractors suggest of them. A wise person would see, then, that the detractors are not to be believed.
Hey, you know what?
I take it back.
Pick on Mary all you like.
Where in the Gospels did He who was w/o sin teach a concept of forgiveness that included punishment? Where did He act to forgive and punish, in accordance with such a concept?
Jesus said to the THIEF on the cross..."THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise."
And that thief did nothing more than believe. He said, "Remember me when you come into Your kingdom."
No baptism, no rosary, no penance, no indulgences....just the Bullet Express to Paradise.
"There you go again, ranking Scripture!"
Of course!
Jesus is God.
What God says from his own lips is more important than what anybody else says ABOUT God saying this or that.
Jesus ranks Scripture too. Even throws some of it out.
Obviously I put Jesus dead center. If you want to pit Jesus' very clear teachings against someone else in the Bible, you go ahead. Obviously nobody has the same authority as Jesus. Self-evident.
"That you do so dogmatically while criticising the Church is a scandal. I am too busy to deal with this now. I will as soon as I have time."
If you have the authority, do so.
If you do not have the authority, do not presume to do so.
John 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
"They should never have reinstalled that Catholic King!"
Paris vaut bien une messe.
"Are you saying that the selling of indulgences is error?"
Grievous and horriffic.
It is the sin of Simon Magus.
Selling indulgences does not legally occur today.
Where it occurs it is against the law of the Church.
It should always have been against the law of the Church, but at one time it was not, and indulgences were sold to raise money.
That was a very bad thing.
Luther was right to rail against it.
Rome did not arrive at its dogmatic positions hastily nor lightly. She is the product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of the Church found in the Word of God. For instance:
This is Rome. These are the dogmas we associate with Rome. They are unscriptural. All of them are the very antithesis of New Testament doctrine.
"Do you doubt you could walk into your parish and pay for an indulgence?"
I do doubt it, yes. It would be illegal.
"How about Prayer Cards? Bought any of those lately? Paid for a mass to be said in someone's name?"
Are you a minister? Do you take a salary? Do you allow people to pay you filthy lucre to preach the word of God, which Jesus gave for free?
"The Jews also did not believe in the resurrection of souls either"
Of course they did.
See 2 Maccabbees, written about 150 years before Christ.
The Sadduccees didn't believe in the resurrection of souls.
The Pharisees did.
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.