"On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the established indulgence practice of the Roman curia."
Luther, M. (1999, c1970). Vol. 39: Luther's works, vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (39:241). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Posts
12 comments:
I wonder what the going rate is today for indulgences?
Is it based on inflation or T-bills?
LOL. The whole indulgence thing reminds me of being ripped off by a P.T. Barnum scam.
Plus shipping. But when this offer is gone, its gone.
The simplicity that is in Christ, versus institutionalization :
"An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned,
which the follower of Christ
with the proper dispositions
and under certain determined conditions
acquires through the intervention of the Church
which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints.”
Partial as well as plenary indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage. (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; Norms, n. 1;3; cf. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Normae de indulgentiis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1999, p. 21; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471)
Assisting with devotion at the procession of the holy Rosary (7 years and 7 quarantines of indulgence); Or "with faith, piety and love" saying "My lord and my God" at the elevation of the host during Mass (7 years); Kissing the Pope's (300-day indulgence, but a bishop's gets only 50); Ascending the holy stairs in Rome on one's knees, "whilst meditating on the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" (9 years per step). - The Raccolta : or, Collection of indulgenced prayers and good works"
Many people have the custom of saying 500 or 1,000 times each day the little ejaculation, "Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee" or the one word, "Jesus."
...Those who say the ejaculations 1,000 times a day gain 300,000 days Indulgence! What a multitude of souls they can thus relieve! What will it not be at the end of a month, a year--or 50 years? And if they do not say the ejaculations, what an immense number of graces and favours they shall have lost. It is quite possible and even easy to say these ejaculations 1,000 times a day. But if one does not say them 1,000 times, let him say them 500 or 200 times. — By Fr. Paul O'Sullivan HOW TO AVOID PURGATORY
"A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50)
Interesting how the "treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints" must be won again, or appropriated by grovelling up stairs, eating broken glass, etc..
If the Pope has access to this treasury of merit, why does he not graciously empty it onto poor souls?
@kaycee asked, If the Pope has access to this treasury of merit, why does he not graciously empty it onto poor souls?
Great explanation from Catholic.com:
"If the Church has the resources to wipe out everyone’s temporal penalties, why doesn’t it do so?"
Because God does not wish this to be done. God himself instituted the pattern of temporal penalties being left behind. They fulfill valid functions, one of them disciplinary. If a child were never disciplined, he would never learn obedience. God disciplines us as his children — "the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Heb. 12:6) — so some temporal penalties must remain.
The Church cannot wipe out, with a stroke of the pen, so to speak, everyone’s temporal punishments because their remission depends on the dispositions of the persons who suffer those temporal punishments. Just as repentance and faith are needed for the remission of eternal penalties, so they are needed for the remission of temporal penalties. Pope Paul VI stated, "Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God"(Indulgentarium Doctrina 11). We might say that the degree of remission depends on how well the penitent has learned his lesson.
Great explanation from Catholic.com:..
The Church cannot wipe out, with a stroke of the pen, so to speak, everyone’s temporal punishments because their remission depends on the dispositions of the persons who suffer those temporal punishments.
This is not a great explanation, for the plenary indulgence was given to anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration. Even if this presumed sincerity, then he could offer it to all now.
On one hand this great explanation must presume all the recipients of plenary indulgences were contrite, while on the other hand it requires of like souls expiation of sins "through fire and torments or purifying punishments” during an indeterminate time in purgatory. (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)
@PeaceByJesus
You are partially right on a couple of points but still misunderstand the God-given right (Mt 16:18-19, 18:18) of the Church to do conduct her mission.
You are correct in understanding your statement that "all the recipients of plenary indulgences [should be] contrite" for their sins. And being contrite, in the standard sense, requires that one receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Jn 20:23). What the indulgent does is relieve one of the potential purgatorial suffering for attachment to sin. (1 Cor 3:15)
So this whole doctrine of indulgences is not even remotely contradicted in Scripture; however, the manner in which certain local authorities may have administered this privilege is not always correct. But alas no one ever said that the Church, local or not, was run on earth by perfect creatures.
but still misunderstand the God-given right (Mt 16:18-19, 18:18) of the Church to do conduct her mission.
I do not misunderstand the claim, which is a self-proclaimed one that does not depend upon Scriptural substantiation, which is abundantly provided for faith in the subject of Peter's confession, and thus Christ Himself, being the Rock foundation upon which the church is rests, but is based upon Rome's presumption that she is assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, thus establishing sola ecclesia.
But alas no one ever said that the Church, local or not, was run on earth by perfect creatures.
No, not perfect creatures, just perfectly unable to err when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, though this is extended by Pope Gregory VII in Dictatus Papae, ”That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”
What the indulgent does is relieve one of the potential purgatorial suffering for attachment to sin. (1 Cor 3:15)
Your attempt to extrapolate Scriptural support for your doctrine out of 1Cor. 3 is an argument against it being Scriptural, and appears to be that of private interpretation. The footnote on 1Cor. 3:15 in the NAB, the official RC Bible for America, states,
[Verse 15] Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 1 Cor 3:17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 1 Cor 5:5; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.
The immediate and larger context is about the church, and here it deals with judgment as regards the manner of material one builds it with. For God's judgment will reveal who men were following and building His church with, and the Corinthians were, like Rome, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture) and also counting manifestly gross sinners as members, which Paul proceeds to chasten them for.
The judgment of 1Cor. 3:15 is thus about works in building the church, for “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.”
And the fire is not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified, but the fire is that which consumes the false building material, and the suffering is the consequential suffering of loss of rewards )1Cor. 3:15) for building the church with bad material, versus stones like Peter. The fire burns up the fake stones, these represented as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)
So this whole doctrine of indulgences is not even remotely contradicted in Scripture
It certainly is, and what is remote is any support, as nowhere does it tell of believers being in a place of suffering for an time for expiatory or purifying purposes, but while the tormented postmortem state of the lost is clear, in accordance with accountability, relevant to grace given, the clear references to the postmortem place of the elect is with the Lord. Not only would the penitent criminal as well as Paul be with the Lord upon their passing, (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8: “we”) but so would every raptured Corinthian (1Cor. 15:51ff) or Thessalonian, “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess. 4:17) even though the former in particular were in need of greater purification, (2Cor. 7:1) though not all were believers. (2Cor. 13:5)
In addition, Paul describes the passing from this life as being “clothed upon with our house which is from heaven,” to be with the Lord, which is something to earnestly be desired, and is in contrast to our groaning on earth. (2Cor. 5:1-4)
Moreover there is no need for a postmortem purgatorial purification, as the sinful nature will not enter glory, and those who do enter glory are those who want to be freed from that, having fought it during their voyage on earth, and once they are, i do not think they would sin even if they could. Nor are any further works needed for repentance, as while on earth repentance does entail restitution if needed, it is the heart to do so that God counts as the deed, and any further consequence for sin will be the suffering of loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval.
But for believers there are consequences in this life for forgiven sin, (2Sam. 12) from lost opportunities to loss of lives, as well as chastisement for in this life needed for conformity to Christ, (Heb. 12) which can be severe, and their will be postmortem accountability for how a believer lived his life. (Rm. 14:10-12; 2Cor. 5:10) And meeting the Lord's disapproval will not be a light thing, part of which i surmise will be the grief at realizing how much their lack in “the obedience of faith” cost souls, and robbed God of the glory they could have given their sacrificial Lord and Savior. Yet this takes place after His return. (2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18)
However, this is not the Roman Catholic brand of purgatory, which is primarily based upon tradition, and perpetuates one erroneous view among others. And which can only find support by extrapolating their ideas of a postmortem period of purification out of some ambiguous texts. They also fail of the required “unanimous consent of the fathers,” who had some various disparate views, and which is why the EOs reject the purgatory of Roman Catholicism, though they, like it, are a church tradition-based faith.
@PeaceByJesus
I deleted my last comment because the link to my response to your own did not show up: http://jesusfountofmercy.com/2011/08/11/in-defense-of-indulgances-and-purgatory/
In any event, feel free to comment there using the Disqus platform. I find Blogger's comment management a bit of a pain.
A response to the above can be seen in full here
Post a Comment