Indulgences Are Back!

[papist1]

thank you for that definition.

Also, was there still a question as to whether or not indulgences "went away"?

peace, papist

 

[bbbbbbb]

thank you for that definition.

Also, was there still a question as to whether or not indulgences "went away"?

peace, papist

I don't think there was a question that indulgences had disappeared any more than Limbo has disappeared or Purgatory, for that matter. In light of the fact that there has been no ex-cathedra statements made concerning them (and, in fact there have only been ex-cathedra statements made concerning the four Marian dogmas) all of these things exist in the gray light of Catholic theology. Some of these gray things get shunted to the dust bin of history in due time, such as the Papal Bull pronouncing the earth to be flat. Others just linger along, experiencing varying degrees of popularity. Someday Limbo might come back into popularity again, too. Who knows? Ten years ago I would have said that indulgences didn't stand much of a chance because Purgatory had been dramatically redefined.

 

[Hairy Tic]

According to an article here - NYTimes.com: For Catholics, Heaven Moves One Step Closer - the Catholic Church is back in the indulgence game again after having dropped the ball for a few decades.

## Indulgences have never been "away" - therefore, they cannot be "back" If people do not avail themselves of them, that is not because the Church says they should not.

For those of us old enough to remember, an indulgence is like a ticket to get some time out of prison (purgatory) for good behavior or, more importantly, performing good deeds like giving a certain amount of money to the Catholic Church. It appears that the financial woes of the Catholic Church have provided an excellent incentive for reintroducing indulgences.

## That sounds like a barely-concealed accusation of simony, which is an extremely serious crime. To sell grace is both impossible, & criminal even to attempt.

Indulgences are not gained by giving money - eternal damnation may be.

One of the theological difficulties with indulgences is that they get time off from a place (Purgatory) that has been heavily marketed as either being non-existent

## Not by the Church. Why would it commit the heresy of denying the existence of a condition, state or place the exoistence of whoich it has defined as truth revealed by God ? Various people in the Church may have said otherwise, but they harm only themselves by denying Catholic dogma.

as a place or is merely a pleasant experience akin to taking a shower to cleanse one's soul prior to entering heaven. If it is the latter, indulgences are really quite meaningless.

## No. Sin is a fact, & an unimaginably terrible one. Because there is sin, there is need of purgatory. Therefore, indulgences are not at all meaningless. When sin becomes trivial, a thing of no importance, something to find amusing, so will purgation from sin: but not one moment before that. Sin is Deicidal - that tells us all we need to know about its true character. The Saints were led by a sound instinct when they emphasised the severity of the pains of Purgatory. If the "roots" of sin in the soul were not so deep & tangled, & God were no so Righteous, the "fires" of Purgatory would not be so searing.

If Purgatory is the nasty place of torment which has been the traditional marketing tool of the Catholic Church, then the CC needs to revisit that doctrine and ramp up the tales of woe and terror awaiting the faithful Catholic after death.

## It is very much more than that. However, I agree that there should be more emphasis on it, & far more emphasis on Hell & damnation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for the good reply.

## Indulgences have never been "away" - therefore, they cannot be "back" If people do not avail themselves of them, that is not because the Church says they should not.

I probably should have said that they are back in active use again after a lengthy period when little or no mention was made of them and some of my otherwise sincere Catholic friends would argue with me that they were still available.

## That sounds like a barely-concealed accusation of simony, which is an extremely serious crime. To sell grace is both impossible, & criminal even to attempt.

I agree entirely. Sadly, there were some in the sixteenth century who were guilty of that very crime. Today indulgences are not sold for money per se. However, money is typically donated for masses to be said for dead people. Whether or not these masses would be said apart from the monetary donation is open to discussion.

Indulgences are not gained by giving money - eternal damnation may be.

I agree entirely.

## Not by the Church. Why would it commit the heresy of denying the existence of a condition, state or place the exoistence of whoich it has defined as truth revealed by God ? Various people in the Church may have said otherwise, but they harm only themselves by denying Catholic dogma.

I agree, but with the caveat that this revelation concerning purgatory has neither been given nor received by any other branch of the body of Christ. It is a uniquely Catholic doctrine. Thus, it becomes questionable if, as has been asserted, that the Protestant and the Eastern Orthodox churches are partakers of salvation, whether they will be sent to purgatory or not.

## No. Sin is a fact, & an unimaginably terrible one. Because there is sin, there is need of purgatory. Therefore, indulgences are not at all meaningless. When sin becomes trivial, a thing of no importance, something to find amusing, so will purgation from sin: but not one moment before that. Sin is Deicidal - that tells us all we need to know about its true character. The Saints were led by a sound instinct when they emphasised the severity of the pains of Purgatory. If the "roots" of sin in the soul were not so deep & tangled, & God were no so Righteous, the "fires" of Purgatory would not be so searing.
## It is very much more than that. However, I agree that there should be more emphasis on it, & far more emphasis on Hell & damnation.

Sin is, indeed, a fact. Therefore, there is a very real need for hell and damnation. Very sadly, I agree with you that far too little emphasis is placed upon these so that many blithely assume that heaven awaits all people.

The theological difficulty with purgatory is that exists merely for the purgation of temporal sins. IMO this minimizes both the seriousness of sin and the sacrificial payment for sin by Jesus Christ. First, it minimizes sin by making an artificial category of sin which is less significant than, say mortal sin. Temporal sin becomes something for which people can, and need to, pay for themselves (I do not mean pay in terms of monetary payment, but to suffer). Sins such as mortal sins are deemed significant enough to merit God's intervention through Christ, but temporal sins are not as significant. Thus, there are sins for which God is either unwilling or unable to pay for through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

My question which has not yet been answered is whether God is unwilling or whether He is unable to provide payment for temporal sins.

Thanks again for the excellent post.

 

[bbbbbbb]

.

 

[papist1]

again, indulgences never left.

 

[JimfromOhio]

indulgence ?

Time for me to come up with my Theses similar to Martin Luther.

 

[papist1]

and again, indulgences never left.

only the abuse of selling them.

peace, papist

 

[OpenDoor]

thank you for that definition.

Also, was there still a question as to whether or not indulgences "went away"?

peace, papist

I was told they were out during RCIA