Roman Catholic "Indulgences"

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Do Roman Catholics want to take another stab again at trying to describe and offer yet another one of their dreamed-up explanations, (which the RCC endlessly claims it never changes), as to what Roman Catholic "Indulgences" are? How many times, in their history, is the RCC going to offer another one of their heretical descriptions claiming that their Roman Catholic Church's explanation of "indulgences" will never even consider changing. But, golly gosh, imagine this . . . when "indulgences" were first used by the Church of Roman Catholicism, it was taught that it meant to grant grace for doing penance. But, In popular RCC use today though, "indulgences" has the connotation of lack of penance, something soft, as indulgent parents. The uninformed often attach this latter meaning to the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of indulgences. They think it means getting something for nothing.
 
Do Roman Catholics want to take another stab again at trying to describe and offer yet another one of their dreamed-up explanations, (which the RCC endlessly claims it never changes), as to what Roman Catholic "Indulgences" are? How many times, in their history, is the RCC going to offer another one of their heretical descriptions claiming that their Roman Catholic Church's explanation of "indulgences" will never even consider changing. But, golly gosh, imagine this . . . when "indulgences" were first used by the Church of Roman Catholicism, it was taught that it meant to grant grace for doing penance. But, In popular RCC use today though, "indulgences" has the connotation of lack of penance, something soft, as indulgent parents. The uninformed often attach this latter meaning to the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of indulgences. They think it means getting something for nothing.
Oh it is all part of the RCC back up plans because they cannot trust Jesus to save them. These back up plans can be changed and expanded whenever it suits the hierarchy. I mean it is all about development of teachings from acorn to oak.
 
Do Roman Catholics want to take another stab again at trying to describe and offer yet another one of their dreamed-up explanations, (which the RCC endlessly claims it never changes), as to what Roman Catholic "Indulgences" are? How many times, in their history, is the RCC going to offer another one of their heretical descriptions claiming that their Roman Catholic Church's explanation of "indulgences" will never even consider changing. But, golly gosh, imagine this . . . when "indulgences" were first used by the Church of Roman Catholicism, it was taught that it meant to grant grace for doing penance. But, In popular RCC use today though, "indulgences" has the connotation of lack of penance, something soft, as indulgent parents. The uninformed often attach this latter meaning to the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of indulgences. They think it means getting something for nothing.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Indulgences do not grant "Grace" what they grant is the remission of the temporal punishment due sin.
 
Word play.
Grace

The word "grace" in biblical parlance can, like forgiveness, repentance, regeneration, and salvation, mean something as broad as describing the whole of God's activity toward man or as narrow as describing one segment of that activity.

 
"Indulgences " are just time off of one's sentence in purgatory. Either full, or set amount in days or years.

It was basically invented out of whole cloth.
Of course it was invented. But Catholics think "binding and loosing" gave their church carte blanche to make up teachings NOT found in the Bible and turn them into doctrines. Sad, isn't it?

BTW--didn't indulgences pay for building St. Peter's basilica?
 
Where is this in the Bible? And aren't they also supposed to shorten one's stay in Purgatory?
Why does the Bible have to teach the concept of indulgences in order to be true?

Remember, Bonnie, I do not accept the terms of the debate as you are framing it. You are the Sola Scriptura Christian, not me.

Secondly, an indulgence removes some or all of the temporal punishment due sin. That much is Church teaching. How this works in Purgatory, relieving "time" is unknown. How does time work in the afterlife?
 
Why does the Bible have to teach the concept of indulgences in order to be true?

Remember, Bonnie, I do not accept the terms of the debate as you are framing it. You are the Sola Scriptura Christian, not me.

Secondly, an indulgence removes some or all of the temporal punishment due sin. That much is Church teaching. How this works in Purgatory, relieving "time" is unknown. How does time work in the afterlife?


I'm amazed how often RC's aren't that informed about their own religion around here.

Books like the "Raccolta"- linked here, is an RC book with an extensive list of precise prayers which Catholics believe they will get designated times off of their purgatorial sentences for saying and the limitations on them.

 
Why does the Bible have to teach the concept of indulgences in order to be true?

Because IF it were a true doctrine, then Jesus and/or the Apostles would have taught it. Also, it goes against what Scripture DOES teach us.
Remember, Bonnie, I do not accept the terms of the debate as you are framing it. You are the Sola Scriptura Christian, not me.

Yes, I know. And NOT being sola scriptura gives your church license to make up any teaching it wants to, and declare it as "doctrine." How convenient! But what does Jesus tell us, quoting Isaiah quoting God almighty? "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men." Your church nullifies the word of God with its man-made doctrines and practices! Shameful!
Secondly, an indulgence removes some or all of the temporal punishment due sin. That much is Church teaching.

Yes, YOUR church's teaching but not the Bible's teaching or the teaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles. I prefer to go by them, and not your heterodoxical church that teaches lies.
How this works in Purgatory, relieving "time" is unknown. How does time work in the afterlife?
We won't know until we get there. But one thing for certain, Purgatory does not exist. Jesus is quite capable of cleansing us from ALL sins at death, without some "purgatory." He can even do it BEFORE death, so, AFTER death would not be a stretch for Him--would it?
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed how often RC's aren't that informed about their own religion around here.

Books like the "Raccolta"- linked here, is an RC book with an extensive list of precise prayers which Catholics believe they will get designated times off of their purgatorial sentences for saying and the limitations on them.

How utterly stupid can one person get???

Shameful, shameful, shameful....more proof that Catholics don't trust Jesus Christ and His promises.
 
Because IF it were a true doctrine, then Jesus and/or the Apostles would have taught it.
That much I agree with.

What I disagree with is Sola Scriptura, Bonnie. You assume the testimony of the Church with regard to indulgences is not valid evidence that Jesus and or the apostles taught something.
Also, it goes against what Scripture DOES teach us.
No, Bonnie, it goes against the Protestant doctrine of Faith alone. Because you think Scripture teaches Faith alone, you think the doctrine goes against the Scriptures becasue if the Scriptures teach Faith alone, then indulgences would go against the Scriptures.
Yes, I know. And NOT being sola scriptura gives your church license to make up any teaching it wants to, and declare it as "doctrine."
You would think that.

And yet, the Church does not just make stuff up, does she? If what you are saying is true--why doesn't the Church formally embrace wokism--and allow for transgender, homosxual marriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage, etc? The Church in the form of the pope and bishops maintain traditional biblical morality on these points--precisely becasue they feel constrained by the Word of God.
How convenient! But that does Jesus tell us, quoting Isaiah quoting God almighty? "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men." Your church nullifies the word of God with its man-made doctrines and practices! Shameful!
You assume that becasue Jesus condemns the man made traditions the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching---that this means Jesus condemns all tradition, man made or otherwise.

You also totally ignore the context of the verse---where the religious leaders were invoking the Corban rule as a way to shirk responsibility to care for their parents. In other words--they were taking what was a worthy tradition and twisting it to suit their own selfish ends.
Yes, YOUR church's teaching but not the Bible's teaching or the teaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles. I prefer to go by them, and not your heterodoxical church that teaches lies.
To be more specific, you prefer to go by what the Lutheran Church teaches Christ and the apostles taught.
We won't know until we get there. But one thing for certain, Purgatory does not exist. Jesus is quite capable of cleansing us from ALL sins at death, without some "purgatory." He can even do it BEFORE death, so, AFTER death would not be a stretch for Him--would it?
Your statement only shows your total ignorance of Purgatory.

Those who are in Purgatory are forgiven of sin. That is why they can be there and not in Hell. In the second place, those in Purgatory have been cleansed from the eternal guilt of their sin. Purgatory completes the process of sanctification as well as purges away any "attachments" we have to sin. Those attachments to sin are the temporal effects of sin.
 
I'm amazed how often RC's aren't that informed about their own religion around here.

Books like the "Raccolta"- linked here, is an RC book with an extensive list of precise prayers which Catholics believe they will get designated times off of their purgatorial sentences for saying and the limitations on them.

 
That much I agree with.

What I disagree with is Sola Scriptura, Bonnie. You assume the testimony of the Church with regard to indulgences is not valid evidence that Jesus and or the apostles taught something.

Over and over again, Roman Catholicism seems to reek of Gnosticism. Let's see... These teachings of Jesus we'll write down, but these other teachings of Jesus we'll keep secret, and only tell people orally.

No, Bonnie, it goes against the Protestant doctrine of Faith alone.

So all these ECF's were Protestant?:

“Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, ‘Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.’ All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works we have have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
- Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch. 32 (AD 99)

“Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ.”
- Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Galatians,1.3.7 (AD 356)

“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us in righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”
- Basil of Caesarea, Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate (AD 379)

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”
- Ambrosiaster, on 1 Cor 1:14b (AD 384)

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
- Ambrosiaster, on Rom. 3:24 (AD 384)

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone; before circumcision, the text says, Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 27.7 (AD 407)

“See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ‘law of faith’? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27 (AD 407)

For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1-2 (AD 407)

“God justifies by faith alone” (“Deus ex sola fide justificat”)
- Jerome, Epestolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v.3 (AD 420)

“What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, but they gift of justification comes only from faith.”
- Bede, Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.(AD 735)

"But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given to you individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith."
- Bernard of Clairvaux , First Sermon on the Annunciation (AD 1153)

“Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone.”
- Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (AD 1274

Because you think Scripture teaches Faith alone,

Doesn't it?:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

2Tim. 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Rom. 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Rom. 11:5
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

And yet, the Church does not just make stuff up, does she?

Clearly, "she" does.
Immaculate conception;
Perpetual virginity;
bodily assumption;
papacy;
etc.
etc.
etc.

If what you are saying is true--why doesn't the Church formally embrace wokism--and allow for transgender, homosxual marriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage, etc?

Wait for it...
I know MANY Catholics who want the pope to teach that homosexuality is no longer a sin. And the RCC has female chaplains, which while they try to rationalize, is a slippery slope of progression.

To be more specific, you prefer to go by what the Lutheran Church teaches Christ and the apostles taught.

So you have a different NT than the Lutheran church has?
 
why doesn't the Church formally embrace wokism--and allow for transgender, homosxual marriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage, etc?

Hahahahaha. The amount of Catholics that do is staggering.

And you say this as if it matters either way.

If your sect Masters came out tomorrow with an infallible proclamation of wokism, devout Catholics like you would flood the board telling us all this has always been the teaching of the Apostles and the Catholic Church...in "seed" form. :rolleyes:

That is because devout Catholics do not operate from a working moral compass. They do whatever they are told....by definition. And they will lie about whatever they are told. That's their job.

So accept it with all docility, Romish.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about. Indulgences do not grant "Grace" what they grant is the remission of the temporal punishment due sin.
And just when you KNOW IT CAN'T GET MORE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!!!!!

It does.

Somebody should inform our justice system, that when you give Ca$h money to a nice man in a dress, and a fully hat, your "Punishment" is all cancelled.
 
Back
Top