Well, it's not establishing a new rule. I agree, some who were considered authorities got out of line. But indulgences is nothing new.
The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance. Jesus instructed the disciples to exclude the impenitent from the fellowship of the Church, but to forgive those who seek forgiveness. (Matthew 18:15ff) St. Paul likewise told the Corinthians to expel the immoral brother, but to readmit him after due penance. (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11) Many other passages of Scripture command the Church to correct, admonish, and punish the immoral, the disobedient, and the factious. (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Tit. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20; Galatians 6:1-2)
OK on the above,,,but what does this have to do with indulgences?
The ancient Church kept up this practice. Penance and absolution were a public affair, sometimes lasting
for years. Disputes raged, however, over how long penance should last and under what circumstances it should be reduced. Would a quick “I’m sorry” do for a murderer, apostate, or adulterer? “Hard liners” (like Tertullian and Novatian) argued that some sins were so severe they should never be forgiven. (They appealed to Hebrews 6:4-8 in defense of their views.) Others, like Pope Calixtus (d. 222) were more lenient, and extended absolution to everyone.
Right. This goes slightly into the history of confession (auditory).
To this day very serious sins could only be forgiven by the Bishop of a locality (Parish) - actually Pope Frances has abolished that practice and now any priest could forgive any sin.
Hebrews 6:4-8 is a great example of how the church, in general, comes to have a greater understanding of scripture and also its practices.
Under St. Cyprian (210-258), the North African Church offered another perspective. Christians had long valued the intercession of the saints and martyrs. Through Christ, their merits and prayers were of extraordinary value. (James 5:16; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 7:14-15) What if those saints, martyrs, and confessors (those in prison for their faith or on their way to martyrdom), offered their sufferings on behalf of the penitent?
I've learned a little about this from a Catholic hermit (?) I've studied with (along with about 15 other persons) but I truly cannot understand how we offer our sufferings for another. I THINK this is one of the gifts that the congregation can offer at Mass before Communion,,,I really can't remember.
But, yes, I fail to understand this altogether.
It’s very important to grasp what was being suggested. No one thought that Christ’s sufferings were insufficient. No one thought that the penitent or the martyrs could
buy their way into heaven. They were concerned simply with the
temporal punishments due to sin, not the eternal consequences of unremitted guilt. It was a matter of the disciplinary action of the Church, excluding and admitting from communion, and the conditions for that readmission.
The question was whether the merits of the saints could be applied towards remitting only the temporal punishments.
Only the temporal punishments of the saint or of anyone to whom it could be attributed??
This is where things get complicated for non-Catholic Christians. They are not accustomed to distinguishing between the guilt of sin and its temporal consequences. Nor are they used to thinking in terms of vicarious merit. And yet, both ideas are deeply biblical. 2 Samuel 12 and 2 Samuel 24 both teach that
God demands satisfaction for sin even when the guilt has been previously remitted. Likewise, we find vicarious merit and suffering throughout Scripture. (Genesis 18:32; Colossians 1:24).
You say God demands satisfaction for sin.
Isn't Jesus our satisfaction for sin?
Any atonement theory you wish to discuss will say that Jesus paid for our sins (in one understanding or another).
This is exactly why I say that it would seem that Jesus' death would seem not to be sufficient in the Catholic theology.
In Cyprian’s day, some of the confessors began handing out indulgences
in their own names, or on their own authority. Sometimes, they gave them out as “blank checks” on which penitents could write their own names. St. Cyprian’s response was truly astonishing. He did not deny that these
libellus (as they were called) had value. Rather, he demanded that the granting of indulgences should be subject to the authority of the bishop.
In Cyprian’s day, the Church recognized that sin has a temporal consequence, to which the Church’s authority and intercessions apply. The Church fathers also believed deeply in the communion of saints, and that the weaker members can share in the merits and gifts of the stronger. They applied this biblical logic to the problem of penances. It was a small step to apply it as well to the sufferings of those in purgatory.
I understand that the saved were saved by the church...
But today even the CC understands that salvation is a very personal issue so the strength of a person cannot be given to another (in a spiritual sense). It would make everything you state above moot.
May I be allowed to say that the CC has kind of dug itself into a hole...of which it is trying to escape.
I think many more changes will be on the way....these doctrine cause conflict among even the Catholic believers.
The Church, following the Jewish practice, has always offered prayers for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12: 38-46) From this, and from what we know about penance, purity, and some suggestive scriptures (Matthew 5:25-26; 1 Cor. 3:11-15), the fathers inferred the doctrine of purgatory. The important thing to remember is that purgatory is a
temporal punishment. As such, it is subject to the merits and intercessory prayers of the Church. These can be directed through the practice of indulgences.
Do you know that children (catholic) are more afraid of purgatary than hell?
Indulgences are not a “get out of hell free card.” They are not a license to sin. Rather, they are how the Church can direct the prayers and merits of the faithful to the spiritual benefit of poor souls. They are grounded in the biblical teaching on Church discipline and the communion of saints. They emerged in the earliest years of the Church with the approbation of her holiest doctors and saints. Rightly understood, they are a beautiful testament to the solidarity of all Christians, to our union in Christ.
(Thanks to the article by Dr. David Anders
The Logic of Indulgences - Dr. David Anders, who explains things so beautifully.) (calvin2catholic.com)