Indulgences

RileyG said:

I don't think they increased after his use. Maybe he just applied them more? I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

even if that were true, it’s not good that they would need to be applied more since they deal with soteriology.

RileyG said:

AFAIK, (in the RCC *only*) Indulgences were always part of the Roman Church.

Click to expand...

out of curiosity, do you happen to know the earliest, clear example of indulgences would be?

ArmyMatt said:

out of curiosity, do you happen to know the earliest, clear example of indulgences would be?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Maybe in the 1200s when the doctrine of purgatory developed?

dóxatotheó said:

Also, its not a practice anymore in the Church

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

indulgences have never been a practice of the Church. plus, Pope JPII brought them back to my knowledge.

Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Indulgences have continually been part of the practice of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Anyone who says otherwise quite simply has no idea what they're talking about.

RileyG said:

I'm not sure. Maybe in the 1200s when the doctrine of purgatory developed?

Click to expand...

that’s pretty late. it shouldn’t have taken 1200 years

chilehed said:

What in the world are you talking about? Indulgences have continually been part of the practice of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Anyone who says otherwise quite simply has no idea what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

then show us where they clearly are in the early Fathers.

ArmyMatt said:

that’s pretty late. it shouldn’t have taken 1200 years

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know.

ArmyMatt said:

then show us where they clearly are in the early Fathers.

Click to expand...

That's a crazy goal-post move. You're the one who said they were "brought back" by JPII, so the burden's on you to prove it.

However, the Baltimore Catechism talks about them, it was written in the 1800's long before JPII was born, so they were certainly established and in use by that time. Luther said a lot about them, so certainly they were established prior to that. The Fourth Lateran Council dealt with abuses of indulgences and St. Thomas Acquinas wrote about them, both of these in the 1200's so they were established before that... do you need me to keep going? Luther rejected the Books of Maccabbes in part because they explicitly show that the idea of indulgences was known among the Jews prior to the time of Christ.

The idea that the use of indulgences in the Catholic Church is a recent development, is just crazy.

chilehed said:

That's a crazy goal-post move. You're the one who said they were "brought back" by JPII, so the burden's on you to prove it.

However, the Baltimore Catechism talks about them, it was written in the 1800's long before JPII was born, so they were certainly established and in use by that time. Luther said a lot about them, so certainly they were established prior to that. The Fourth Lateran Council dealt with abuses of indulgences in the 1200's, and St. Thomas Acquinas wrote about them, so they were established before that... do you need me to keep going?

Click to expand...

well, JPII was what I heard from Roman Catholic friends of mine (being an army chaplain, I talk to them a lot).

and yes, you should keep going. seeing as how this is the Orthodox subforum, you would do well to not only have post-Schism references. the 1200s as the earliest reference looks pretty dumb.

RileyG said:

I honestly don't know.

Click to expand...

I just did a google search. I do not know how accurate it is. Council of Clermont in 1095, to answer your question when they were first used. This will be my last comment.

God bless

RileyG said:

I honestly don't know.

Click to expand...

might be something to check out

RileyG said:

I just did a google search. I do not know how accurate it is. Council of Clermont in 1095, to answer your question when they were first used. This will be my last comment.

God bless

Click to expand...

thanks, but that’s still pretty late (if it’s the earliest).

chilehed said:

That's a crazy goal-post move. You're the one who said they were "brought back" by JPII, so the burden's on you to prove it.

However, the Baltimore Catechism talks about them, it was written in the 1800's long before JPII was born, so they were certainly established and in use by that time. Luther said a lot about them, so certainly they were established prior to that. The Fourth Lateran Council dealt with abuses of indulgences and St. Thomas Acquinas wrote about them, both of these in the 1200's so they were established before that... do you need me to keep going? Luther rejected the Books of Maccabbes in part because they explicitly show that the idea of indulgences was known among the Jews prior to the time of Christ.

The idea that the use of indulgences in the Catholic Church is a recent development, is just crazy.

Click to expand...

You said it was from the time of the Apostles, yet you only go back as far as post schism. I am not finding your argument convincing.

chilehed said:

The idea that the use of indulgences in the Catholic Church is a recent development, is just crazy.

Click to expand...

the idea that indulgences is a recent development is also not something I ever said. in fact, to say that they were brought back by JPII means they had been there prior them falling out. which means they wouldn’t have been recent.

also, just before your first post I asked when the earliest clear reference was, and was told 1200s, which I didn’t dispute because I didn’t know. that means no one ever said they were recent.

however, that doesn’t mean they were a part of the Church from the beginning.

chilehed said:

Luther rejected the Books of Maccabbes in part because they explicitly show that the idea of indulgences was known among the Jews prior to the time of Christ.

Click to expand...

where are indulgences in Maccabees? and I should add, them praying for the departed are not indulgences.

ArmyMatt said:

where are indulgences in Maccabees? and I should add, them praying for the departed are not indulgences.

Click to expand...

I think the one that is normally used as a defense of purgatory, not indulgences, is this section of 2nd Maccabees:

Expiation for the Dead.
38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.
39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.
40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.
42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

The conclusion from this is that God had revealed the sin of the dead to the living to allow them to ask for mercy for the dead. The implication is that if they had chosen not to do this, the Jewish warriors would have not been resurrected. So this would show that there can be absolution from sin after death. It is my opinion that Jesus tells us that those sins we forgive are forgiven; but those sins we hold are not forgiven. We can hold someone else's sins against them and prevent the process above. The atonement for the dead is then delayed until that person who holds the sin forgives it. This to me is what is meant as a temporal punishment. This is purely my conjecture though.

tz620q said:

I think the one that is normally used as a defense of purgatory, not indulgences, is this section of 2nd Maccabees:

Expiation for the Dead.
38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.
39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.
40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.
42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

The conclusion from this is that God had revealed the sin of the dead to the living to allow them to ask for mercy for the dead. The implication is that if they had chosen not to do this, the Jewish warriors would have not been resurrected. So this would show that there can be absolution from sin after death. It is my opinion that Jesus tells us that those sins we forgive are forgiven; but those sins we hold are not forgiven. We can hold someone else's sins against them and prevent the process above. The atonement for the dead is then delayed until that person who holds the sin forgives it. This to me is what is meant as a temporal punishment. This is purely my conjecture though.

Click to expand...

except that doesn’t make sense. only the saved are in Purgatory, so they will be resurrected. so a prayer that they be resurrected at all would be an odd one to make. not only that, but nowhere do these verses speak of a condition of the soul like Purgatory.

saying that verse supports Purgatory is like when Muslims say John 1 supports Mohammed since they ask John if he is the Prophet.

ArmyMatt said:

except that doesn’t make sense. only the saved are in Purgatory, so they will be resurrected. so a prayer that they be resurrected at all would be an odd one to make. not only that, but nowhere do these verses speak of a condition of the soul like Purgatory.

saying that verse supports Purgatory is like when Muslims say John 1 supports Mohammed since they ask John if he is the Prophet.

Click to expand...

Well since the word purgatory comes from the medieval Latin purgatorium - "to cleanse", we have to look beyond the word to the concept. To me the concept is a sequence of questions:
1. Can prayers for the dead have any benefit for them?
2. If so, is this benefit so great as to actually change their private judgement?
3. If not, then what do prayers for the dead actually do?

In 2nd Maccabees, these warriors had fought for God's people against their enemies, so it would seems that their deeds while alive would benefit for their salvation. But they still had attachment to other gods, which normally would preclude them from God's mercy. It is unknowable how God judged these warriors; but the actions of Judas Maccabeus would tend to say that he believed an appeal to God's mercy would be heard and answered. So again, if there is no indeterminate state between Paradise and Sheol, what benefit do prayers for the dead have?

I ask this as an open question, not a rhetorical one. I would be interested in having a better understanding of how the Orthodox view prayers for the dead and what they think the benefit is of doing this.

Personally, I believe a general understanding of our faith in calling us to pray is for the earthly living & the earthly departed. We really do not pray for the “dead” because God is of the living ( Matthew 22:32), the Lord’s Prayer is for God’s will on earth & heaven ( Matthew 6:9-13), & in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 St. Paul’s instruction to pray for all, I believe, is also applicable to the earthly departed.
Lastly, I believe, the great commandments ( Matthew 22:36-40) & the golden rule ( Matthew 7:12) also apply as to reasons for prayer for the earthly departed.

tz620q said:

1. Can prayers for the dead have any benefit for them?

Click to expand...

yes.

tz620q said:

2. If so, is this benefit so great as to actually change their private judgement?

Click to expand...

no, it’s a part of their particular judgment, which God knew before the foundation of the world. in other words, He knows eternally prayers for the dead, and takes that into account.

tz620q said:

3. If not, then what do prayers for the dead actually do?

Click to expand...

don’t worry, we agree they do.

tz620q said:

So again, if there is no indeterminate state between Paradise and Sheol, what benefit do prayers for the dead have?

Click to expand...

see above. God can release souls from Sheol, taking into account the prayers of the Church on behalf of the departed. that doesn’t require a third, intermediate state for those heading to Paradise. and again, those verses provide no real support for a third state.