• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
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.
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
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.
## 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.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Thanks for the good reply.


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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.