indulgences

[dairygirl4u2c]

While the idea of indulgences may have been around for a long long time, does anyone know who started using the actual word "indulgence"?

[dairygirl4u2c]

And/or

What was the understanding of the word indulgence of the people who sold indulgences who were part of the cause of the reformation?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord,

WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
Some writs of indulgence--none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)--contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve" a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner -- prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad 2um), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.



check it out:[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm"]Indulgences[/url]


yours in Christ,

Sam

[dairygirl4u2c]

That was actually the first place I looked.

Then and now, I don't see how it answers either of my questions.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Your a non-Catholic right?

do you come here to try convert people?

just wondering


Sam

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have no agendas of "converting" people to anything other than understanding the strengths and weaknesses of arguments used to substantiate themselves.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so anyway, back on topic:

While the idea of indulgences may have been around for a long long time, does anyone know who started using the actual word "indulgence"?

What was the understanding of the word indulgence of the people who sold indulgences who were part of the cause of the reformation?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2005, 08:37 PM']

What was the understanding of the word indulgence of the people who sold indulgences who were part of the cause of the reformation? [/quote]
It is not the understanding that change so much as the practice during the reformation. It was considered wrong to sell indlugences because you were selling a spiritual good for material money. It was also an exploitation for it would assure that the rich had a "free ticket" to heaven. This goes against preferential option for the poor, but that came much later in those terms at least. Like I said indulgences never dramatically changed in understanding so much as the practice and abuses of them that casued the reformation. I think the famous name is Tetzel. i am sure if you did some research on him you could find out what all the hubub was about.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, here's my claim based only on what history books purport. The Catholic Church taught that indulgences forgave people of their sins (not just temporal I assume) around the reformation. Catholic Church apologists would have you believe that they were only teaching in their human aspects. But what the Catholic Church has done is justified the indulgences by saying that penances for sins have always existed and the indulgences were like penances.

Can anyone who how this is wrong? ie probably show what Catholic Church officials taught around that time, as I can't find anything...
(I seem to find walls where I'd think I could find more information...)

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2005, 11:05 PM'] Well, here's my claim based only on what history books purport. The Catholic Church taught that indulgences forgave people of their sins (not just temporal I assume) around the reformation. Catholic Church apologists would have you believe that they were only teaching in their human aspects. But what the Catholic Church has done is justified the indulgences by saying that penances for sins have always existed and the indulgences were like penances.

Can anyone who how this is wrong? ie probably show what Catholic Church officials taught around that time, as I can't find anything...
(I seem to find walls where I'd think I could find more information...) [/quote]
One thing that i would like to say that text books, especially history text books, are often inaccurate. History text books are always an interpretation of what happened, one simply cannot get around it. They always refelct the author's bias for better or worse. Also can you really rely on a history text book to talk about religous doctrine of the last acceptable prejudice in America?

Also why would there need to be something apart from the sacrament of reconcilliation for the forgiveness of sins? The Church already had something to cover absolution, therefore the selling of indulgences would be moot. No where have I read where indulgencs were the same as penance. Penance is for absolution of sin, induglence is for the temporal effect of sin. Two different things. I am looking for myself where I might find this, please be paitent because as you said it is a tough subject to research. Please do not make the equivication of indulgences and absolution though. They are by doctrine defined as two different things. If you had some support other than a history text book (which I would be interested in the editors and publisher of such a book) I could work with that, but considering the state of our history text books and America's current stance on Catholicism I cannot recongize such an authority on the CHurch's beliefs.

[Paphnutius]

I seem to get the impression that they do not like a lot of links on this page, but I am too lazy to copy and paste all of this. I found this on New Advent and it seems to answer some of the questions of where it came from and when. Here is the link:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm[/url]

After reading let me know if there is anything it left out and I will see what I can find in our library here.

[thessalonian]

Well, Aquinas was what was being taught in the seminaries. Here is what he says:

[quote]Hence we must say on the contrary that indulgences hold good both in the Church's court and in the judgment of God, for the remission of the punishment which remains after contrition, absolution, and confession, whether this punishment be enjoined or not. [/quote]

[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/XP/XP025.html#XPQ25OUTP1"]http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/XP/XP025.html#XPQ25OUTP1[/url]

This was Church teaching at the time and so if someone was teaching otherwise it only proves that they were teaching contrary to what the Church taught so I am not sure what your twist is going to be on this thread.

More from Aquinas.

[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/XP/XP027.html"]http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/XP/XP027.html[/url]

Blessings though

Edited March 12, 2005 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, it doens't mean that the Catholic Church couldn't have changed that for prereformation. That'd be a contradiction. All i know is history books and protestants who say that though. I've never really seen anything substantial other than that.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 12 2005, 09:32 PM'] Well, it doens't mean that the Catholic Church couldn't have changed that for prereformation. That'd be a contradiction. All i know is history books and protestants who say that though. I've never really seen anything substantial other than that. [/quote]
Well as I said, this is a rather secular country so of course you are going to find things contrary to the largest Christian denomination in the world. You arent really going to find anything in text books or protestant circles that explain how the Church defines, and has defined since prereformation times, indulgences.