Does the RCC still sell indulgences?

According to Dr. Hank Lindstrom's February 7 broadcast, they still do.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bibleline/

after approximately 15 minutes into the broadcast.

He gave the example that when Kennedy was assassinated, they accepted a large collection of indulgences to save his soul. Is this true?

According to the official teaching/doctrine of the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences is wrong. It is a kind of simony, the buying or selling of spiritual things. At different times in history, individual Catholic clerics have probably been guilty of this practice, so this has created a great deal of scandal. Also, you cannot understand what an indulgence actually is without some knowledge of Catholic teaching on sin and punishment. Here is a thorough treatment of the matter: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/indulgences.htm

Does the RCC still sell indulgences?

Why? You buying? 😉

If they are not selling, send the money my way, I'll put in a good word for ya...

Seriously, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Church in granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory. "

"Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quodlib.", II, q. viii, a. 16). "

"Lea (History, etc., III, 446) somewhat reluctantly acknowledges that "with the decline in the financial possibilities of the system, indulgences have greatly multiplied as an incentive to spiritual exercises, and they can thus be so easily obtained that there is no danger of the recurrence of the old abuses, even if the finer sense of fitness, characteristic of modern times, on the part of both prelates and people, did not deter the attempt." The full significance, however, of this "multiplication" lies in the fact that. the Church, by rooting out abuses, has shown the rigor of her spiritual life. She has maintained the practice of indulgences, because, when these are used in accordance with what she prescribes, they strengthen the spiritual life by inducing the faithful to approach the sacraments and to purify their consciences of sin. And further, they encourage the performance, in a truly religious spirit, of works that redound, not alone to the welfare of the individual, but also to God's glory and to the service of the neighbor. "

So, apparently, the answer is yes.

[Edit] Hmmm, apparently it depends who you talk to. Anybody who can run over and ask the pope?

[Edit#2] OK, it seems the practice of SELLING indulgences is supposed to be shelved, but not indulgences themselves?

Originally posted by Raindear
According to the official teaching/doctrine of the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences is wrong. It is a kind of simony, the buying or selling holy objects. At different times in history, individual Catholic clerics have certainly been guilty of this practice, so this has created a great deal of scandal. Here is a thorough treatment of the matter: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/indulgences.htm

Is is true that donations were accepted on behalf of Kennedy's salvation after his assassination?

I do not know the specifics of that incident. All I can say is that it would be wrong if they did. The Catholic Church would not officially condone it. More likely, the Kennedy family was offering the Church money in return for prayers for the soul of JFK, which is legitimate. In such cases, it is regarded as a donation and not as a buying.

Originally posted by Raindear
I do not know the specifics of that incident. All I can say is that it would be wrong if they did. The Catholic Church would not officially condone it. More likely, the Kennedy family was offering the Church money in return for prayers for the soul of JFK, which is legitimate. In such cases, it is regarded as a donation and not as a buying.

LOL. I see.

Originally posted by Raindear
I do not know the specifics of that incident. All I can say is that it would be wrong if they did. The Catholic Church would not officially condone it. More likely, the Kennedy family was offering the Church money in return for prayers for the soul of JFK, which is legitimate. In such cases, it is regarded as a donation and not as a buying.

Ahhh, its all in the semantics then?

This excerpt from the Catechism explains the principle somewhat:

The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."56 The competent authority determines these "offerings" in accordance with the principle that the Christian people ought to contribute to the support of the Church's ministers. "The laborer deserves his food."57 (Catechism 2121, 2122)

Priests need money to survive just like anybody else, thus they can legitimately ask for recompense for their services. You are not buying the spiritual benefit, but rather contributing to the livelihood of their minister. This is an important distinction!

Originally posted by Raindear
This excerpt from the Catechism explains the principle somewhat:

The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."56 The competent authority determines these "offerin ...[text shortened]... ather contributing to the livelihood of their minister. This is an important distinction!

I'm not interested in offerings for the church and its staff. That's not what I'm asking about. I'm sure that happens.

The radio host specifically said that the church still sells indulgences, and that people bought indulgences on behalf of Kennedy's salvation. I want to know if this is actually true.

The Church per se does not sell indulgences and never has in the past either. As I've already said, however, the official position of the Church is not always carried out by its individual members.

I got this from EWTN's website: "There are two notable declarations concerning the sale of indulgences, both pertaining to the purveyors of those indulgences that were not issued by any pope or council. The first was by Pope Clement V (1305-14) condemning the practice of selling indulgences. The second was by the council of Constance in 1418 revoking all indulgences containing the formula indulgentia a culpa et a poena, that is, the most common form of indulgence that was peddled illegally and incorrectly."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]I'm not interested in offerings for the church and its staff. That's not what I'm asking about. I'm sure that happens.

I must not of expressed myself very clearly, because you seem to have misunderstood me. Sorry about that, I will try and explain myself better!

When the Church accepts a monetary offering in exchange for prayers, it is not as if the spiritual good (salvation of the soul, presumably) is being sold. Rather, the priest offering the prayers (a Mass, for example) is being recompensed for his services to the laity.

Although this has no direct bearing on the issue of indulgences, it does shed some light on what is considered simony and what is not.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
According to Dr. Hank Lindstrom's February 7 broadcast, they still do.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bibleline/

after approximately 15 minutes into the broadcast.

He gave the example that when Kennedy was assassinated, they accepted a large collection of indulgences to save his soul. Is this true?

Since according to Hank, we're apparently only days away from the Rapture does it matter?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since according to Hank, we're apparently only days away from the Rapture does it matter?

I need to know if I ought to spend my remaining days mocking Hank or the RCC. I fear there's not enough time left to devote to a thorough mockery of both.

Originally posted by Raindear
This excerpt from the Catechism explains the principle somewhat:

The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."56 The competent authority determines these "offerin ather contributing to the livelihood of their minister. This is an important distinction!

Let me try to reframe what you said and tell me if you think.

This exerpt from the "Developing a Strong Pimphand Handbook."

The ho should ask nothing for the administration of said sexual favors beyond the said contract as defined by the pimp, always being careful that the poor are not deprived of such help/favors as there is dollar potential in their return business. The pimp determines these contract fees in accordance with the principle that the receiver of said favors ought to pay for said services. In short, the pimp deserves his money from the contracted deal.

Pimps need money to survive just like anybody else, thus they can legitimately ask for recompense for their services. You are not buying love, but rather contributing to the livelihood of the pimp and his stable. This is an important distinction.

I sincerely hope this will not be moderated as it was posted with a serious intent.

The Catholic church would worship Allah for the right amount of money.