Leaving the Catholic Church, A Letter of Resignation

Lazyboy's Rest Stop ^ | Robert Mayberry

[Gamecock]

Following is my resignation letter from the Roman Catholic Church and from my position as Director of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), a program designed to teach Catholicism to adults who would like to become Catholics.

This letter serves to inform you that I am separating myself from the Roman Catholic Church. This decision has come about after many months of intensive research into the Scriptures, the writings of the Patristic fathers of the church, and church history. During this period of research I have considered the writings and/or oral arguments of such Catholic authors as Keating, Sungenis, Ott, Hahn, Matatics, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). My separation from the church of Rome is driven by differences in doctrine. This is not a matter of rancor but rather a matter of being faithful to my Lord and Savior with a clear conscience. It is worth noting that I might never have reached this conclusion, except that I was appointed to the position of the Director of the RCIA. Being placed in that position compelled me to look at the Scriptures and church in depth as I studied Catholic doctrine. I readily acknowledge that there are many sincere and devout people in the Catholic church that love the Lord Jesus, but I believe that many of them are misled as to how a person is saved.

What happened that I should change my mind? When I joined the Church in 1993 I made a serious commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Catholic church. My commitment to the Lord Jesus remains and has grown, but my decision to join the RCC was based upon only a surface reading of Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic church. The more I have looked at Scripture (and not just at localized passages) I discovered that not all the doctrines taught by the RCC are Scriptural. Not being content with this, because I realized that my private interpretation might possibly be in error, I began to read the writings of the early fathers of the church. I found that many of the doctrines held and taught by the RCC today are not in agreement with the early church, nor are they found in Scripture. Many of them actually contradict Scripture.

What are some of the doctrinal problems that force me to separate myself?

Marian Doctrine

I have reviewed the church’s teaching on Mary, as Co-Mediatrix, her perpetual virginity, Immaculate conception, and being enthroned as Queen of Heaven. These doctrines are not in agreement with scripture or the teachings of the early fathers of the church. Saint Paul writes in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:5) "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.." It was interesting to discover that none of the early church fathers in the first three hundred years of the church ever wrote about Mary as a Co-Mediator. If there is only one mediator as God’s Word says, how can there be a co-mediator? This is a blatant contradiction.

As to Mary’s perpetual virginity Scripture is quite plain. In Matthew 13:55-56 are found references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Now I am aware of the claim of some that these terms may refer to cousins or kindred. If one looks up the Greek words for brother and sister in this passage the meaning is clear: the gospel writer means the siblings (adelphos) of the Lord. There are other passages that list the words for cousins (sungenes) as well as for brother (adelphos) or sister in the same passage (such as Luke 21:16).

As to the immaculate conception does not Romans 3:23 say: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is worth noting that the scripture says that God alone (with respect to human beings) is without sin.

There is no mention in scripture for Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Nor do the early church fathers write of this. Scripture does make mention of a Queen of heaven, however, in Jeremiah 44:25. In this portion of scripture the Lord voices his great displeasure with the people of Israel for offering worship to the Queen of Heaven.

Indulgences and Purgatory

In paragraph 1030 of the CCC it says: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The idea that regenerated believers in Christ can be imperfectly purified is not scriptural. In Hebrews 10:14 it says: " for by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated." If believers in Christ are made perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, how can there be any that are considered impure by God? Again it is written in Hebrews 10:10: "we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

If these passages are not clear enough, we should consider what the Lord Jesus said to the "good" thief, in Luke 23:43 "..Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Now surely no one would claim that a thief whose crimes were so monstrous as to rate the death penalty would have been able to enter Heaven, because his acts would have rendered him impure and unclean. Instead we see that by his faith in the Lord Jesus, he was cleansed from all imperfection and entered into Christ’s presence in heaven. There is no mention in Scripture of temporal punishment for sin remaining after forgiveness.

Justification

I think that the fundamental difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the scriptures is most pronounced with respect to how we are saved. The CCC teaches that we can merit eternal life by works done in a state of grace, and not simply by faith alone. St. Paul on the other hand writes in several places that:

Romans 3:28 "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so no one may boast."

Galatians 2:16 "We…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

The scriptures are clear that salvation comes from repentance and faith in Christ Jesus alone. We will never be justified by our own works whether done in a state of grace or not.

Now some have argued that what Paul meant by the law was the ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant. This cannot be the case, because Paul later refers to coveting as a violation of the law in Romans 7:7-13. So it can be shown that when Paul says that no one will be justified by the works of the law he is in fact referring to the moral code as well as the ceremonial codes.

The scriptures teach that we are declared righteous by God because of our faith in the Lord Jesus, not by performing penances, novenas, masses, obtaining indulgences or experiencing purgatory. Paul writes in Romans 4:6 "So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits (imputes, declares) righteousness apart from works." So it can be seen that we cannot earn our way to being declared righteous by God, or receiving supplemental graces from God to earn our way into heaven.

I am not saying that those who are justified by Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary have no obligation for obedience to the Lord. Nor am I saying that one is saved by faith, and then allowed to do nothing. In fact those who are called by God our Father, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repenting of their sins, and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, will invariably seek to do the will of the Lord. To continue on with the passage in that was quoted earlier:

Ephesians 2:10 " for we are His handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."

I freely believe that faith without works is dead (so did the leaders of the Reformation). God does indeed call us to repent from sin and to work in His service. Nevertheless, no human being will be justified by his own works before God (Romans 3:20), because such works can never be performed perfectly. If someone claims faith in the Lord Jesus, yet no evidence of conversion is found, that person has not yet encountered the risen Christ!

I agree that sanctification, that is, being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus, is an on going process that takes a lifetime. I agree that we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16) " even as He is Holy." We are to strive to complete that holiness, (Hebrews 12:14) "without which no one will see the Lord." The work of that holiness comes from the Lord and is His work, and not from ourselves (Ephesians 2:10). By our own efforts we will not succeed.

The Eucharist.

I fully agree that the Eucharist, true to the meaning of the original Greek, is in fact an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God. It is also certainly a memorial like the Passover, and we are certainly called to be obedient to Christ by celebrating it and proclaiming his death until He comes again. Where Catholic doctrine begins to differ with Scripture is when it states (Paragraph 1367 of the CCC) that the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and that Christ is re-sacrificed, but in an unbloody manner. According to Scripture an unbloody sacrifice is not propitiatory, Hebrews 9:22 "and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

The scriptures actually declare that there is no longer an offering for sin, because Christ died once and for all (Romans 6:10). The author of Hebrews declares in 10:18 "Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer offering for sin." Again in Hebrews 10:10 " We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

I am not claiming that Christ is not present in the Eucharist. He is most certainly present in Spirit. He cannot be physically present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will come again physically at the second coming. Did not the angels say to the apostles in Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking up at he sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven."

Many people in the West today think that the word "spiritual" is synonymous with "not there." I totally disagree with them. Christ is in fact spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, even as he is present in the hearts and spirits of believers.

Worship of Images

One of the things that has bothered me about the Catholic faith since the beginning, is the reverence and worship offered to images and statues. I tried to ignore this at first, because many a catechist had likened the use of sacred images to keeping of pictures of Jesus, or family members in the home. The problem with this argument is that I don’t worship pictures of my relatives or bow down to them, or pray to them. There is a clear injunction in the second commandment in Exodus 20:4 " You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them." How can I respect the church’s teaching and maintain a clear conscience before the Lord our God? Scripture no where teaches that we are to pray to any other being other than the Lord.

Scripture and Tradition

I have no problem with tradition. Tradition must, however be subordinate to and in agreement with the Scriptures or it is not from God. As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about the authority of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul writes: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." Some Catholic apologists have argued that Saint Paul was speaking about an independent, parallel, unrecorded Gospel contained in an oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The problem with this concept is that Paul tells us elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 " The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the Scriptures foretold, died for our sins…That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you." It was interesting to discover what St. Augustine had to write about Scripture and Tradition:

"From the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life." (The City of God)

" I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject without his permission." (Contra Cresconium)

Papacy

The RCC teaches that the Pope is the head of the entire Christian church, and as such exercises supreme authority, and is guaranteed to be free of error when teaching on faith or morals (CCC 881 through 891).

If the Pope is infallible, how can he and the Magisterium of the church teach doctrines that contradict Scripture? The foundational passage in Scripture used to justify the Pope’s position is Matthew 16:18-19: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." If the Roman interpretation is correct then Peter did indeed have the keys. How did the early church fathers interpret this key passage?

Hilary of Poitiers (315-368 AD) "…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jonah confessed to him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God? ...And this is the rock of the confession whereon the church was built….This faith it is which is the foundation of the church…"

Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD) "…Jesus said to the divine Peter: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple."

It appears, that at least in the early church, that the rock referred to by the Lord was the faith of Peter, not Peter himself.

In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter writes: " Therefore, I exhort you the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ…" Note that Peter does not refer to himself as the supreme pontiff, rather as a fellow elder! Saint Paul rebuked Peter for his compromising of the Gospel at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14 and Acts 15. It is worth noting that after Paul’s rebuke that Peter actually repented and changed his position. Where is infallibility in this?

Just for the record there was a Pope who was branded as a heretic. Pope Honorius (625-638 AD) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council for supporting monotheletism. Pope Liberius (352-356) signed an Arian confession and denounced Athanasius in order to maintain his See against pressure from the Emperor Constantius II. Pope Zosimus (417-418) rebuked Augustine and the North African church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his heretical teachings. The North African church subsequently rejected the directions and admonitions of Zosimus.

Apparently the church has not always believed what Rome requires that we believe today.

As I review all these findings I find myself squarely in the position of the Reformed church. How surprising! I thought it would turn out the other way. By God’s grace I am headed back to the faith of my fathers after all.

In the Service of Jesus Christ our Lord,

Robert W. Mayberry

Note: In the parish priest's response to my letter he did not comment on any of the doctrinal issues that I raised.

[tiki]

I noticed that you ignored or didn’t see my post at 388 in answer to 259

[phatus maximus]

Xzins said: “It will forever be true that there is no scriptural basis for rcc mariology: immaculate conception, assumption, co-redemptrix. It simply cannot be demonstrated biblically.”

Petronski said: “You are also, of course, entitled to your own personal interpretation of scripture.”

**********************************************************

It's time for the Pepsi challenge, the Degree “all in moment” folks!!

Petronski - You state that xzins is wrong in saying the following items are not provable by scripture. Very well. Prove then, purely from scripture, these things:

immaculate conception, assumption, co-redemptrix.

This is a sincere, respectful request. It is not a request to set up some good old fashioned RCC bashing (which I’m soooooooooooooooooooooo tired of hearing all non RCCr’s do which is ridiculous to imply), it’s a request for proof, scripturally, of those things you state are provable. All I want to see is an answer, not a diversion, not a new topic, not a question to turn it back on me to prove they are not provable, but rather a simple answer to defend your position.

Before you even ask, infer or say I’m bashing I’ll share my beliefs so you can focus on your answers. I believe that Mary is the most blessed woman ever as scripture tells us she will be called. She carried Christ inside her and was/is his mother, how could she not be?!? She is an exceptional example of being devoted to Christ as she recognized the need for a savior for all mankind, including herself. She is most undoubtedly in heaven with her Son. I believe her example of being devoted to her Son is what we should be, devoted to Christ and to spreading the good news of His sacrifice to save us from our sin. I don’t know if she was or was not a virgin forever. I don’t believe that fact is intrinsically interwoven into the question of salvation. If she devoted herself to be a virgin for all her days or if God made that so it is great either way - in other words it does not impact salvation. Could we be saved if she was either or? Of course. I believe the Holy Spirit could have in fact made her perfectly pure when Christ was conceived and growing in her womb, however I do not believe Mary was without sin in all her days. That is not to say God could not have done that if he chose, he clearly can do whatever His will desires. I don’t know if Mary was assumpted to heaven or not. If she was, then it is a blessing for her to be brought to heaven to be in God’s presence. If she was not and was brought to the glory of God’s presence that way then that is a blessing as well. The point is it is not how she arrives that is important but rather that she would be blessed to be in God’s presence forever. I believe it always, has been, is and always will be all about God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We all are God’s workmanship built to do the works He desires to do thru us. We are His servants. We are his subjects who He has chosen to save. How lucky and blessed are we?

Thank you and Blessings to you in Christ

PM

[Uri’el-2012]

That is why the gospels are technically OT . They cover the period of time when Jesus lived and ministered, died and rose again.

Jesus lived under the law in the Ot period of sacrifices etc.

The church was born at Pentecost and that was after the Ascension.

That is the start of the NT writings which were instructional/correctional letters to the church and of course the final prophecy of John to the church about the end of time.

470 posted on 06/02/2007 1:57:28 PM MDT by ears_to_hear

Only if you assume that the word Ekkelsia (church) did not exist in the LXX.

However it does occur in the LXX.
Stephen points us to it.

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel,
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness
with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and
[with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

b'shem Yah'shua

[xzins]

I am willing to defend my assertion.

Proposition: The immaculate conception, the assumption, and the coredemption of Mary cannot be demonstrated from the old & new testaments of the bible.

[1000 silverlings]

To some who love God's Word and never weary of it:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

Psalm 19:9

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb .

19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward

1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[1000 silverlings]

The Word is our very nourishment

Matthew 6:11

Give us this day our daily bread

1 Peter 2:2

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

[Petronski]

Those sincerely interested in an answer will make quick study of the topic on the online Catechism of the Catholic Church, here:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

[tiki]

Tiki, the scriptures are the very word of God.

I reread this and I don't happen to agree. The scriptures are the inspired word of God. He used men to write them. He spoke to them through the Holy Spirit. Check out the 1st chapter of John.

[Running On Empty]

In that “new and eternal covenant” fulfilled in the New Testament, God identifies Himself in a direct manner: “God is love.”

He demonstrated this by sending His Son, to show us what love is.

[Running On Empty]

“In the beginning.........and the WORD was GOD”

[trisham]

Exactly.

~Deus Caritas Est~

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life” (3:16)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Word is our very nourishment

Amen.

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" -- Ephesians 1:13

[trisham]

Another excerpt from

~Deus Caritas Est~

17. "True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible. God loved us first, says the Letter of John quoted above (cf. 4:10), and this love of God has appeared in our midst. He has become visible in as much as he “has sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). God has made himself visible: in Jesus we are able to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:9). Indeed, God is visible in a number of ways. In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path. Nor has the Lord been absent from subsequent Church history: he encounters us ever anew, in the men and women who reflect his presence, in his word, in the sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist. In the Church's Liturgy, in her prayer, in the living community of believers, we experience the love of God, we perceive his presence and we thus learn to recognize that presence in our daily lives. He has loved us first and he continues to do so; we too, then, can respond with love. God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us."

[pjr12345]

I don’t spread lies.

Sale of Indulgences Affirmed (1343)

It was on this date, January 27, 1343, that Pope Clement VI issued a bull, Unigenitus, officially reaffirming that the Catholic Church can grant remission of sin through indulgences. The bull says,

Upon the altar of the Cross Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent ... thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

In other words, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints." The scheme is fortuitous on a number of levels: the Christian can avoid the expense of a journey to Rome in a Jubilee Year (first instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300 and carried into the modern era by John Paul II as recently as 2000); the horrific doctrine of Hell is mitigated (except for non-Catholics) by the invention of Purgatory, where minor sins can be expunged before going to heaven; and the Catholic Church can make piles of money by "taxing" the granting of "remittance" of sin: that is, granting a partial pardon, or shortening of torture, in the afterlife.

.....

The chief abusers, after indulgences were instituted in large measure by Boniface, were the anti-pope John XXIII (1400-1415), described by the Council of Constance as a seller of benefices, bulls, sacraments, ordinations, consecrations and anything else that would bring in money, Leo X (1513-1521), who condemned Luther and dispensed indulgences to build St. Peter's in Rome[5], and Clement VIII (1592-1605), a notorious nepotist, who showered his relatives with gold from sold indulgences.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0127b-almanac.htm

[vladimir998]

Can you do me a favor and show me where in post #461 this statement is contradicted:

“No pope ever approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act.”

I read your post and no where saw where Pius IV said anything about selling indulgences. He also never said in what you quoted anything about the selling of indulgences being a proper act.

Pius IV was AGAINST the selling of indulgences. He was not against indulgences. My statement, and the one I was responding to, were about the selling of indulgences.

This is from the Council of Trent, in fact: “But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished.”

[phatus maximus]

I just read the entire section on Mary. Three verses of scripture. So that’s it? Three short verses are the proof of these three concepts? Is that true or am I missing something?

[xone]

bttt

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sale of Indulgences Affirmed (1343)”

Where in the document is there a mention of the sale of indulgences as proper?

Also, just one quick point about Ronald Bruce Meyer. On his website he wrote this: “It wasn’t entirely the monks’ fault: in the greatest abbey of the 13th century, the Abbey of St. Gall, not a single monk could read!”

Really? So in the thirteenth century not a single monk at St. Gall could read? Really? So the monastery that was most famous for its library and book making was entirely illiterate?

Pray tell how did Ekkehard VI write his life of St. Nokter Balbulus in 1214? And who at St. Gall made the mid-thirteenth century copy of the famous mss. of the Nibelungenlied called “The Vulgate” version (which was copied in three different hands by the way)?

http://www.stiftsbibliothek.ch/index.asp

http://www.cesg.unifr.ch/de/index.htm

Maybe Meyer should read Anna A. Grotans’ Reading in Medieval St. Gall (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology), 2006. I think that would help.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

See post 495.

Even NewAdvent must be confused because it spends pages and pages on giving this kind of convoluted explanation of their anti-Biblical musings...

INDULGENCES

"...A further distinction is that between perpetual indulgences, which may be gained at any time, and temporary,which are available on certain days only, or within certain periods. Real indulgences are attached to the use of certain objects (crucifix, rosary, medal); personal are those which do not require the use of any such material thing, or which are granted only to a certain class of individuals, e.g. members of an order or confraternity. The most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."

PartiaL indulgence, perpetual indulgence, temporary indulgence, personal indulgence, plenary indulgence, real indulgence...

Say, what?

Do the writers of this have any idea that none of this stuff is in the Bible? It's all fiction.

[vladimir998]

Are you fiction? You’re not mentioned in the Bible so you must be fiction, right?

A former Protestant explains indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp

Also, please note, no one here yet has offered a single scrap of evidence that the Church or any pope even ever approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act. How much you hate indulgences is irrelevant as to that point.