A Question for Catholics

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Is that bad?

It is if one must learn from accurate history in order to avoid repeating past mistakes.

If you alter your chess notation after a loss to cover it up, there's not much value in revisting it later to analyze your mistakes.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Thank you vites, I appreciate your kind words and you tutelage. I don't expect to hear a whole lot of positive things from people in here, but it's always nice when I do.

I welcome you as well....
BTW..Go Eagles!...McNab was the S/U QB as you know...they haven't been the same since he left.🙁
They can sure use him now!

Originally posted by kirksey957
Doc, I think there's a lot of revisionist history goin on these days.

Well everyone knows that the Spanish Inquistion was to protect the rights of accused heretics from medieval lynch mobs and that the Crusades were purely defensive, so it doesn't surprise me to find out that indulgences weren't REALLY sold by the RCC.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you deny that the Church created a theologically unsound commodities market for punishment remittance, selling indulgences just as a new corporation holds an IPO to raise capital?

Do you deny that the indulgences claimed to absolve the bearer: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, [b]I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."[/b]

Let's be fair here.

My dissertation is (or will be?) on the Mass for the Dead before the
Council of Trent, so I know a little bit about the 'Four Last Things'
of the Medieval Church.

Although Pope St Gregory the Great proclaimed the first notion of
Purgatory, he left it as a mysteriously-defined region between death
and Heaven. His theology of it, like today, was that it was a state
where you came to know what your sin meant. He gave no length of
time or definitive notions of it. He may very well have thought it was
an instantaneous thing, or that it was just a period of time (like Jesus
in the desert for 40 days) where a person comes to epiphany.

By the 12-13th centuries, there were a series of events which led to
a focus on death (most notably the plague). Purgatory was shoved
into the lime-light and re-evaluated. Its qualities were more rigidly
defined, to the point of absurdity (sin 'x' results in 'y' days in
Purgatory, and the like). Furthermore, indulgences became a way for
people to 'take off days in Purgatory.'

Like Purgatory, the concept of indulgences had a well-meaning
beginning: they were acts which the Church formally recognized as a
'good work' and were indicative of being 'a good Christian.' Like
Purgatory, indulgences underwent substantial theological revision in
the past 50-100 years and are back to their original condition (for
example, in many RC Bibles, the following is printed on the reverse
of the title page: A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who
use Sacred Scripture for spiritual reading with the veneration due to
the Word of God. A plenary indulgence is granted if the reading
continues for at least one half hour. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum,
1968 edition, no 50).

However, the Church realized that, combined with its emphasis on the
notion of family members in a state apart from God (Purgatory),
people started to (and still do) 'buy' Masses so that prayers will be
offered for the release of souls into heaven. And, similarly, the
Church recognized the value of 'selling' indulgences because people
wanted Uncle Marmaduke and Aunt Dotty to get into heaven, or they
wanted to knock time off their own Purgatorial sentences.

There is a Latin rhyme (which I forget) which goes something like
this: For every gold piece in a Church coffer rings, a soul from the bars
of Purgatory springs.

It was a shameful period in Church politics and I am glad to see that
they have repented of this manipulative practice.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you deny that the Church created a theologically unsound commodities market for punishment remittance, selling indulgences just as a new corporation holds an IPO to raise capital?

Do you deny that the indulgences claimed to absolve the bearer: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, [b]I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."[/b]

Do you deny that the Church created a theologically unsound commodities market for punishment remittance, selling indulgences just as a new corporation holds an IPO to raise capital?

If it was a "commodities market", then the Church was the only "seller".

Did the Church declare indulgences for donations? Until 1567, yes. But there were always indulgences that were earned by other non-financial acts (e.g. prayer, pilgrimage) which could be earned by anyone.


Do you deny that the indulgences claimed to absolve the bearer: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, [b]I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."[/b]

You need to distinguish between the indulgence itself and the certificate of indulgence (the two are commonly confused). The indulgence itself does not absolve sin, but the indulgence is not obtained unless one receives the sacrament of reconciliation.

You're quoting Tetzel's certificate of indulgence. I'm not surprised it mentions absolution, considering Tetzel was a priest himself and had the faculty to absolve sins.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're quoting Tetzel's certificate of indulgence. I'm not surprised it mentions absolution, considering Tetzel was a priest himself and had the faculty to absolve sins.

I thought Nemesio had pointed out that priests did not have that faculty, or at least that any such claim would have been based on a misinterpretation of the original Greek.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well everyone knows that the Spanish Inquistion was to protect the rights of accused heretics from medieval lynch mobs and that the Crusades were purely defensive, so it doesn't surprise me to find out that indulgences weren't REALLY sold by the RCC.

When facts aren't available, use sarcasm.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I thought Nemesio had pointed out that priests did not have that faculty, or at least that any such claim would have been based on a misinterpretation of the original Greek.

I'm coming to that.

Originally posted by Nemesio

However, the Church realized that, combined with its emphasis on the
notion of family members in a state apart from God (Purgatory),
people started to (and still do) 'buy' Masses so that prayers will be
offered for the release of souls into heaven.

I suppose this explains the mysterious classified ads I see occasionally in the newspaper, where people are selling prayers, like
"$10 buys 50 intercessions for a loved one. Call this number."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When facts aren't available, use sarcasm.

I hope you don't file CRISIS magazine articles under Fact.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When facts aren't available, use sarcasm.

Since the facts are available on these items, I suggest you consult them.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Does it make sense to say that sins have 'already' been forgiven by God prior to absolution by the priest if God's forgiveness is an event that does not take place in time?

This doesn't make sense. Can you cite any other example of things that happen in heaven
that take place out of time in the c ...[text shortened]... ]necessity for entering into heaven is, similarly, Scripturally indefensible.

Nemesio[/b][/b]

This doesn't make sense. Can you cite any other example of things that happen in heaven that take place out of time in the context of the Gospels?

I can't think of Gospel-specific examples (and certainly cannot quote the original Greek) - but one event I can think of is related to the Crucifixion. If the Crucifixion was responsible for the reconciliation of mankind to God, then this reconciliation could not have happened in Time - because there are people who died before Christ who were saved (e.g. Abraham).

Hope that makes sense.

The problem is that verbs require tense, so we cannot speak of events taking place outside Time without using tense; but, of course, the usage of tense in this case does not imply that the event takes place in Time.

You're right that, if a baptised Christian has committed a mortal sin, then the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for entry into heaven - a perfect contrition will also do. But how many humans are capable of that?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I thought Nemesio had pointed out that priests did not have that faculty, or at least that any such claim would have been based on a misinterpretation of the original Greek.

Actually, no - Nemesio hasn't shown that priests do not have the faculty to absolve sins (where the causal relationship between absolution and forgiveness is correctly understood).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since the facts are available on these items, I suggest you consult them.

See my thread on the Inquisition(s).

And, if you don't think the Inquisition (even the Spanish) protected heretics, compare the conviction and death rates between countries that still had the Inquisition and countries that didn't when the witch hunts occurred.