Indulgences

[tjguitarz]

Link to New York Times Article...

It appears that the Catholic tradition of indulgences is back. What should Christians think about such a practice?

 

[Hescominsoon]

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

ok..so where does the CHURCH have the ability to absolve sin anywhere in the bible? it doesn't.

 

[Odale]

I have beef with trying to mitigate spiritual problems with an earthly object (money).

It doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Baron Squirrel]

I have beef with trying to mitigate spiritual problems with an earthly object (money).

It doesn't sit well with me.

You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

you're not buying them, you're doing good deeds to pay them off.

that said, i don't agree with it, either. personally, i don't believe in purgatory, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, apocrypha or not.

one would think that Christ's blood would be enough atonement for sins....

 

[Odale]

You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

you're not buying them, you're doing good deeds to pay them off.

Whether you're buying them or performing other good deeds totally misses the point. The church compelling you to give money, time or anything else to help you mitigate your sins is still bogus and I still have beef with it.

one would think that Christ's blood would be enough atonement for sins....

That is very demeaning to the death of Christ. The church is essentially saying Christs blood is not good enough.

I am glad you mentioned that.

 

[ppar3566]

Before everyone goes on the "aren't catholics stupid" bandwagon I think it is worth remembering that it is the biggest Christian denomination in the world and that vast portions of the congregation also think indulgances are silly, dont think much of the presitge given to the pope and dont see Mary as much more than the mother of Christ. Likewise it is worth remebering that we in the Protestant church also do a believe a whole bunch of stuff that is equally silly and equally not in the bible (Protestant work ethic anyone).

Edit: Not saying that people are getting on that bandwagon necessarily but it is where these threads have gone before so yer

 

[Hescominsoon]

I never once made that kind of blanket statement..

 

[ppar3566]

I never once made that kind of blanket statement..

Please read bold statement below which was in place before you posted the above comment. To be honest i missed your quote when I was reading this and having gone back to read it now I agree fully with what you have said. I was just worried about where these threads have gone before, which I may not have made clear in the post.

Edit: Not saying that people are getting on that bandwagon necessarily but it is where these threads have gone before so yer

 

[inkelis]

I read about this in the paper today, very interesting.

 

[Tek7]

Before everyone goes on the "aren't catholics stupid" bandwagon I think it is worth remembering that it is the biggest Christian denomination in the world and that vast portions of the congregation also think indulgances are silly, dont think much of the presitge given to the pope and dont see Mary as much more than the mother of Christ. Likewise it is worth remebering that we in the Protestant church also do a believe a whole bunch of stuff that is equally silly and equally not in the bible (Protestant work ethic anyone).

QFT.

Having lived in Tulsa for several years and seen the effects of Prosperity Gospel teaching on regular Christians, I can agree that false doctrine is a major issue in Protestant as well as Catholic circles.

Back to the point of indulgences: Scripture teaches one can not earn salvation. To do so would give a Christian the right to boast in himself or herself, which Paul clearly says no Christian has or ever will have.

I don't know many Catholics, but I believe it's reasonable to surmise that most Catholics respect the Pope and appreciate his efforts, but don't believe the Pope is infallible.

While I think most, if not all, active members on these forums would argue that the practice of indulgences, whether the form of payment be money or good deeds, is contrary to Scripture, I wonder how many Christians in Protestant churches have justified not going on missions trips or participating in local missions by helping fund career missionaries and local missions organizations.

Many Christians will raise their first against indulgences if the concept is presented as a way to "pay off" sin. But how many Christians substitute tithes for service? It's so much easier to drop a check in a bucket or offering plate than it is to serve others with one's own hands. The snare is more subtle, but perhaps more dangerous for its subtlety.

 

[Durruck]

But how many Christians substitute tithes for service? It's so much easier to drop a check in a bucket or offering plate than it is to serve others with one's own hands. The snare is more subtle, but perhaps more dangerous for its subtlety.

The blame for that lays on the pastors. They should be teaching both ideas:

Matthew 22:15-22

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

that of course being the example of paying the temple tax, tithe, etc. Also needing to be taught along side is this:

James 2:14-26 (New International Version)

Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

(quoted scripture from http://www.BibleGateway.com)


Here is a good read on this, as well.

God wants our time, our talents, and our money. But that's part of being a faithful servant, it has nothing to do with buying our redemption.

 

[tjguitarz]

Jesus tells us multiple times throughout the scriptures that those teaching false doctrine are going to hell. They are the ones who will be most severely punished by His just wrath.

It is plainly a sin to teach false doctrine. Luke 17:1-2 tells us woe to him that teaches false doctrine. It'd be better for him to tie a millstone to his neck and be thrown in the sea mafia-style.

The Catholic church is teaching false doctrine, and sadly it's not limited to indulgences. How then can we, as a Christian community, stand for this? How can we allow Catholics to call themselves Christians if their teachings are so far from Scripture?

 

[Glitch]

watch out.... there are a lot of doctrines out there that are far from scripture.
There are even common accepted doctrines that people don't look into to realize that these doctrines are not Scripture ally based.
Before we go point out with anger at the idea of indulgences (which i am also assuming that no one has a full understanding of what the Catholic church is supporting)*, lets examine our own doctrine to understand where we are also flawed.
*my side note is thus: no one fully understands what the pope, Vatican, or the Catholic church is bringing back. the paper said that they are bringing back indulgences. ok. Are they modifying the doctrine at all? did the newspaper report incorrectly? Just a couple questions to be raised. Watch yourself before you start attacking the Church body's own arm (speaking from the metaphor Paul uses, in that the Church is like a body)

 

[ppar3566]

watch out.... there are a lot of doctrines out there that are far from scripture.
There are even common accepted doctrines that people don't look into to realize that these doctrines are not Scripture ally based.
Before we go point out with anger at the idea of indulgences (which i am also assuming that no one has a full understanding of what the Catholic church is supporting)*, lets examine our own doctrine to understand where we are also flawed.
*my side note is thus: no one fully understands what the pope, Vatican, or the Catholic church is bringing back. the paper said that they are bringing back indulgences. ok. Are they modifying the doctrine at all? did the newspaper report incorrectly? Just a couple questions to be raised. Watch yourself before you start attacking the Church body's own arm (speaking from the metaphor Paul uses, in that the Church is like a body)

QFT.

If people go to hell for teaching false doctrine then I am most likely stuffed

 

[Odale]

watch out.... there are a lot of doctrines out there that are far from scripture.
There are even common accepted doctrines that people don't look into to realize that these doctrines are not Scripture ally based.
Before we go point out with anger at the idea of indulgences (which i am also assuming that no one has a full understanding of what the Catholic church is supporting)*, lets examine our own doctrine to understand where we are also flawed.
*my side note is thus: no one fully understands what the pope, Vatican, or the Catholic church is bringing back. the paper said that they are bringing back indulgences. ok. Are they modifying the doctrine at all? did the newspaper report incorrectly? Just a couple questions to be raised. Watch yourself before you start attacking the Church body's own arm (speaking from the metaphor Paul uses, in that the Church is like a body)

The article stated that the indulgences were designed to bring people back to confession. I see it simply as a scare tactic...

“Confessions have been down for years and the church is very worried about it,” said the Rev. Tom Reese, a Jesuit and former editor of the Catholic magazine America. In a secularized culture of pop psychology and self-help, he said, “the church wants the idea of personal sin back in the equation. Indulgences are a way of reminding people of the importance of penance.”

“The good news is we’re not selling them anymore,” he added.

If you read the whole article, you will see that not even the Catholics they interviewed know what these indulgences are for.

 

[RiverTigress]

Unless a church of any denomination is using physical force or preventing access to individuals reading the bible on their own, we don't need to stand against them. Rather if we would just promote scripture on its own merits rather than what others are doing with it or in spite of it, we'll be much more effective I think. People are not mindless zombies at the mercy of their pulpits, and the Holy Spirit is not impotent to confirm within sincere believers whether particular teachings are really from God or not.

Maybe this could be argued as more worthy of a fight in less developed countries with lower literacy rates that don't have as easy access to scripture as we do, but even in that case it could be said that the Catholic church wouldn't have nearly the influence it does in those areas if other denominations were pulling equal weight in the mission field. I know for myself while I'm not a Catholic and don't agree with a lot of their teachings, on the whole I end up sending more resources to support Catholic institutions than any other simply because they will be the only Christian presence in certain areas. Maybe people will be offended at this wondering how one could support institutions they aren't in agreement with, but I figure while false teachings are certainly not good, they are still better than leaving people with no teaching at all.

Consider for instance an atheist who goes up to a person to adamantly declare there is no God compared to the negligent Christian who tells that same person nothing. The atheist is certainly wrong and going to hell if he doesn't change and the Christian is still saved and guaranteed the benefits of heaven for himself, but overall the atheist actually did more for the cause of God than the Christian. Because he mentioned God to the other person, even in a wrong manner, he causes God to come to mind of the person he's talking to which encourages that person to want to make a decision of their own, which could just as easily end up with that person seeking the truth for themselves rather than just accepting what this one guy has to say.

 

[Glitch]

Consider for instance an atheist who goes up to a person to adamantly declare there is no God compared to the negligent Christian who tells that same person nothing. The atheist is certainly wrong and going to hell if he doesn't change and the Christian is still saved and guaranteed the benefits of heaven for himself, but overall the atheist actually did more for the cause of God than the Christian. Because he mentioned God to the other person, even in a wrong manner, he causes God to come to mind of the person he's talking to which encourages that person to want to make a decision of their own, which could just as easily end up with that person seeking the truth for themselves rather than just accepting what this one guy has to say.

well.... *sorry for being off topic*

I feel a little convicted.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[tjguitarz]

If people go to hell for teaching false doctrine then I am most likely stuffed

Unrepentant, I believe, is the key word. A dude as cool as you with the love for Jesus that you have is definitely going to heaven. Maybe we can hang out.

Unless a church of any denomination is using physical force or preventing access to individuals reading the bible on their own, we don't need to stand against them.

Consider for instance an atheist who goes up to a person to adamantly declare there is no God compared to the negligent Christian who tells that same person nothing. The atheist is certainly wrong and going to hell if he doesn't change and the Christian is still saved and guaranteed the benefits of heaven for himself, but overall the atheist actually did more for the cause of God than the Christian. Because he mentioned God to the other person, even in a wrong manner, he causes God to come to mind of the person he's talking to which encourages that person to want to make a decision of their own, which could just as easily end up with that person seeking the truth for themselves rather than just accepting what this one guy has to say.

My fiancee's grandmother (a devout Catholic) yelled at her when she was reading the Bible on vacation. "What are you doing reading the Bible? You aren't smart enough. Leave that for the priests to do." If a church doesn't encourage spiritual growth, then what is it doing? Why shouldn't that branch be cut off and thrown in the fire?

Your story about the atheist and the Christian did not sit well with me. False doctrines are never good. They are LIES. Satan is the father of lies and his merchandise should never be encouraged. I have friends that were brought up in heretical theologies. Either they drifted away from that church, or they learned the lies and now have a foul taste in their mouth. Either way, now they're living their lives for themselves, fully worldly.

 

[RiverTigress]

My fiancee's grandmother (a devout Catholic) yelled at her when she was reading the Bible on vacation. "What are you doing reading the Bible? You aren't smart enough. Leave that for the priests to do."

Discouragement is not the same as prohibition. Like I said before, as long as we have access to a Bible or even just the Holy Spirit within us, people aren't mindless zombies who can't figure out on our own what's right and wrong before God, and thinking that they are is actually in agreement with the elite priesthood philosophy. It just differs in judging yourself a better priest than theirs.

If a church doesn't encourage spiritual growth, then what is it doing?

I don't know, making money and complaining about its taxation? That's a question a lot of people have about a lot of churches not limited to just Catholicism, which is probably what Ppar was warning about earlier. Every church ends up advocating some kind of heresy at some point or another because we're all made up of imperfect and fallible people. Even great knowledge of the Bible doesn't always equate to great understanding. The priesthood theory does have some ground in that the Bible is too great for human understanding, but it's the Holy Spirit we need to teach it to us, not another man.

Why shouldn't that branch be cut off and thrown in the fire?

Fortunately we don't have that power, otherwise we'd all end up cast out eventually. Jesus said the axe is laid at the foot of the tree and all that don't bear fruit will be cut down. Here at my desk I have postcards from little children who know about Jesus because of the Catholic church so for myself I have proof of their fruit and no right to pass further judgement where the Lord Himself does not. And if there comes a time when that tree becomes unfruitful, the Lord takes care of that Himself instead of leaving it to us.

Your story about the atheist and the Christian did not sit well with me.

Nor does it with me. It's not supposed to. It's a shameful thing actually, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

False doctrines are never good.

I don't argue that they are. Only that they are better than no doctrine or even worse doctrine that makes no mention of God at all (like abandoning charity to let it become the province of government or secular propaganda for example).

They are LIES. Satan is the father of lies and his merchandise should never be encouraged.

It is a lie too that God wants us to be economically conservative instead of liberal because Proverbs directly contradicts this in many places. Are you willing to fairly extend your logic to Bible believers who support the Republican party too? Or do you make exceptions for some without allowing it for others?

In my case, I support missions on Indian Reservations in the Western US. If you or anyone else can point me to some good programs that are more biblically correct that serve these people I would be very happy to hear about it and adjust my support accordingly. But in the meantime since these people by and large don't have a lot of mobility or information access I will continue to support whoever is going to them rather than giving no support at all. I do make sure I am not supporting promotion of a false god by making sure they teach and mention the name of Christ in their correspondence and publications and that Mary is never in any way magnified above Him, but I consider there being a distinction between having false doctrine and having a false god.

I have friends that were brought up in heretical theologies. Either they drifted away from that church, or they learned the lies and now have a foul taste in their mouth. Either way, now they're living their lives for themselves, fully worldly.

The Bible tells us that all who seek find, so while it may be difficult to accept in people you care about, if they don't find God it's because they don't want or care to and you can't absolve them of their personal responsibility because of someone else. No church good or bad is stronger than the promise of God. As long as you have told them the truth that you know, they have all the information they need to make their decision regardless of what anyone else has told them. Not to mention that worldly life sucks and eventually they'll grow dissatisfied with it on their own, and if they didn't accept the truth about God when you first gave it to them, over time the difference between your life and theirs should be more than sufficient proof to win them back.