- Jan 26, 2007
- 42,359
- 21,037
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
even if that were true, it’s not good that they would need to be applied more since they deal with soteriology.
Upvote
0
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.
I don't think they increased after his use. Maybe he just applied them more? I could be wrong.
AFAIK, (in the RCC *only*) Indulgences were always part of the Roman Church.
I'm not sure. Maybe in the 1200s when the doctrine of purgatory developed?out of curiosity, do you happen to know the earliest, clear example of indulgences would be?
Also, its not a practice anymore in the Church
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.indulgences have never been a practice of the Church. plus, Pope JPII brought them back to my knowledge.
I'm not sure. Maybe in the 1200s when the doctrine of purgatory developed?
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.
I honestly don't know.that’s pretty late. it shouldn’t have taken 1200 years
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.then show us where they clearly are in the early Fathers.
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?
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.I honestly don't know.
I honestly don't know.
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
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.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.
The idea that the use of indulgences in the Catholic Church is a recent development, is just crazy.
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.
I think the one that is normally used as a defense of purgatory, not indulgences, is this section of 2nd Maccabees:where are indulgences in Maccabees? and I should add, them praying for the departed are not indulgences.
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.
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: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.
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?
So again, if there is no indeterminate state between Paradise and Sheol, what benefit do prayers for the dead have?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?