I do hope the story about the Pope offering indulgences to people to follow him on Twitter is untrue. It really does remind me of why I object to the whole concept of Purgatory. We had a big session on this back in May, and I don’t want to rehearse it again, as clearly folk have positions which they hold and which aren’t going to change; but stories like this seem, at least to me, to show an undue laxness about the idea.
If there really is a place where we have a chance to work off our sins when we die (and I can’t see why one would be needed when Christ has paid the price for all our sins), then the idea you can get time of for tweeting seems plain silly; it seems to devalue the idea. Now it may be, as appears to be the case, that this Pope is one of those excitable conversationalists who speaks first and thinks later (if at all), but has the man no one to help him out?
If there is a Purgatory, I can’t see why God would let you off some time in the jug because you were fortunate enough to live in a country where you had access to one of the biggest wastes of time imaginable. Indeed, I dislike the whole idea that if you do x and y you get time off in advance – what on earth is that about when push comes to shove?
I’d have thought that if you need to do serious time after death, that’s what you need to do, not pay it off in advance like a discount for early booking. To my Protestant frame of mind there is something fundamentally wrong with such a way of thinking. It’s like the old idea that if you built a chantry chapel and paid for clerks to say masses for your soul, you could make it out of the jug sooner. The God I know is not a respecter of earthly rank and privilege. I can’t see St Peter checking his notes and going: ‘Yes, you are Sir Geoffrey de Sales, and we have a note here that chantry priests are putting in a mass a day for you, so, in place of the 200 years we had you down for, with the discount, and the indulgences you already have, that’ll be fifty, thanks very much.’ And then: ‘Ah, you are Geoff Sales, the poor ploughman. Yes, I can see that was a pretty nasty life, but unfortunately you didn’t pay for any masses and indulgences, so you get no discount whatsoever.’ If that is parodying it, then I apologise, but I need someone to explain why it is a parody.
I prefer the God I have been brought up with and known all my days – the one who paid the price for our sin and requires of us love and repentance, who counts not the cost, and who desireth not the death of the sinner, but that all might live. I can understand how men came to another view – that really seems far too generous. BUt our God told us the parable of the Prodigal. The Prodigal was prepared to pay a heavy price for merely being fed – his father remitted all; as ours does.
So, I don’t have to go on Twitter 🙂
All Along the Watchtower 
The Church explains it this way: CCC starting at 1471
What is an indulgence?
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”81
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.83
The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”85
LikeLike
You know – St Bosco is right.
I don’t know what he’s going to say, but I sure hope he says something here.
LikeLike
It may surprise you to know that Luther believed in indulgences as well: just not the abuses that had been introduced into the practice.
LikeLike
Servus – well, that simply goes to show that Luther wasn’t right about everything.
It seems to me that on several points, Luther didn’t carry his major insights to their logical conclusions and if you’re right about this, then this is one of them.
(By far the largest difficulty I have with Luther is that he accepted infant baptism. I haven’t read Luther on this – but I read Calvin’s Institutes – and that was pure straw man-ism).
The whole business of indulgences simply goes back to the bottom line – if you understand how deeply sin permeates your whole being, then you understand just how futile indulgences, even of any kind, are – and just how irrelevant they necessarily are in restoring communion between a sinner and God, or maintaining it following the work that Christ has done on our behalf.
This, and everything like this, simply goes to reduce the significance of the once-for-all act.
LikeLike
The reason that non-Catholics have such a hard time with it is because as you have indicated before you do not think the Church has been given the power to bind or loose – so Confession and absolution by the Church is rejected. If you accepted that: then the rest is easy.
For instance, a parent has the right and duty to punish a child for misbehaving. They will forgive the child when the child asks for forgiveness but that does not abrogate the penalty that they give the child. Now if the child shows deep contrition and does something extraordinarily good during the time of punishment, would the parent have the authority to remit part of that punishment? And most parents would do that out of their love and mercy for the child. If a human family can be this merciful, is it hard to understand that in the family of God, that the Bride of Christ can be more merciful than our natural parents?
LikeLike
Servus – are you talking from experience here? You have not always been Catholic – you were non-Catholic before that. At that time did you have difficulty accepting indulgences? And was your non-acceptance of indulgences based on your non-acceptance of the power of the Church to bind and loose?
Because for me it’s nothing like that. For me, the whole concept of indulgences simply reduces the seriousness of sin and turns sin into a light hearted joke.
The authority of the Church to bind and loose is a different issue. I read the verse in Scripture and don’t have (much of a) problem with it – but when I see how The Church believes that this works itself out in practise, then I do have a problem with the way that The Church understands it.
I think that your example with parent punishing the child looks rather ‘theoretical’ – when one hears people talking like this, one thinks that they’ve only ever had abstract theoretical children and have never really had real children of their own.
LikeLike
Jock, I’m sorry that in your case you never had a parent that mitigated a punishment out of mercy. I think many of us did.
When I was a Protestant I really did not know what the Catholic Church thought: that only came with study that was prompted by a reading of The Ascent of Mt. Carmel and Dark Night of the Soul. Everything else, came afterwards. But I think had I not believed in the power of the Church to bind and loose and I did not believe that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth and I did not believe that the Church was the Bride of Christ I might have real problems with the idea of an indulgence because it is wrapped up in the act of penance for one who has already found forgiveness for their sins.
It is this idea that Catholics have of having two spiritual parents: the Church and Christ. We don’t feel that Christ’s leaving this earth left us as orphans because we have the Church, the Bride of Christ as our mother: why we call Her, Holy Mother Church. And surely His Bride, in His absence, has His authority over us in our spiritual lives. It is a difference that we can’t get around in our talks, Jock. We all claim Christ as the Bridegroom and source of all that we have received from God; yet we disagree on the purpose and the authority of the Bride that He chose to be our mother in His absence.
Irreconcilable differences, I’d say.
LikeLike
SF – sadly, seems to be your technique to read in that which is not there – I didn’t say that my parents had never chastised out of mercy.
All I’m saying is that parenting isn’t as logical and clear cut as your post suggests – there are actually emotions that enter into it – people don’t go for the Aristotelian syllogisms in response to what their child has done before concluding the response they make. 🙂
Re – binding and loosing. Take it by example – Moses prayer of intercession. For me that’s the most important example.
I think I’m pretty unhappy with the ‘binding’, but I’m quite happy with the ‘loosing’ – as long as our prayers are asking God to show mercy that’s fine – if we’re asking God to kick our enemies in the nuts then I’m less happy.
The Church is the collection of believers in this context.
Yes – the differences probably are irreconcilable …. but you’re going to heaven anyway whether you like it or not – and we can have a more informed argument about it there :).
LikeLike
Well if you get there first, save me seat at the table Jock. I hate missing a good banquet. 🙂
LikeLike
Really, SF? Then why would Martin Luther have written this to the Archbishop of Mainz in 1517:
“O God, most good! Thus souls committed to your care, good Father, are taught to their death, and the strict account, which you must render for all such, grows and increases. For this reason I have no longer been able to keep quiet about this matter, for it is by no gift of a bishop that man becomes sure of salvation, since he gains this certainty not even by the “inpoured grace” of God, but the Apostle bids us always “work out our own salvation in fear and trembling,” and Peter says, “the righteous scarcely shall be saved.” Finally, so narrow is the way that leads to life, that the Lord, through the prophets Amos and Zechariah, calls those who shall be saved “brands plucked from the burning,” and everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation. Why, then, do the preachers of pardons, by these false fables and promises, make the people careless and fearless? Whereas indulgences confer on us no good gift, either for salvation or for sanctity, but only take away the external penalty, which it was formerly the custom to impose according to the canons.
Finally, works of piety and love are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet these are not preached with such ceremony or such zeal; nay, for the sake of preaching the indulgences they are kept quiet, though it is the first and the sole duty of all bishops that the people should learn the Gospel and the love of Christ, for Christ never taught that indulgences should be preached. How great then is the horror, how great the peril of a bishop, if he permits the Gospel to be kept quiet, and nothing but the noise of indulgences to be spread among his people! Will not Christ say to them, “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”? In addition to this, Most Reverend Father in the Lord, it is said in the Instruction to the Commissaries which is issued under your name, Most Reverend Father (doubtless without your knowledge and consent), that one of the chief graces of indulgence is that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God, and all the penalties of purgatory are destroyed. Again, it is said that contrition is not necessary in those who purchase souls [out of purgatory] or buy confessionalia.”
Not to mention any number articles about how evil it was to build new St. Peters on the back of German peasants who were using their life savings to attempt to buy their parents out of purgatory.
If we are to grant the church a parent’s role, since God is our Father, I suppose that would make the church our what? Step mother, I guess. But Christ is my brother and the church wants me to think it is his bride – so how can it also be my parent.
Geoffrey is correct, and furthermore this is where the phrase “Hier ich stehe, ich kann night anders.” comes in.
LikeLike
Good brother Jock, the unsaved have itching ears. They cant wait for the next cunningly devised fable. The voice of Christ they cannot hear or understand, but the words of men they rejoice at. Im sure you read the things for the catechism good brother Servus posted. Lots of fancy talk. A demonstration that who ever wrote that dosent know the Lord, at all. But the devotees dance for joy at the tune and believe every word. But when Jesus says something, its up for debate. Do not pray in vain repetitions, call no man(religious leader) Father, do not bow thyself to graven images(OT), ..”it is finished”. For these religious people, it seems they have a checklist. if the bible says its a no no, they make sure they do the opposite and make it part and parcel of their religion. Dont bring it to their attention, or youre a hater and you need to learn what the church teaches. Ive been in other blogs dealing with catholics and others. We can say anything, no moderation per se, but some get their posts taken down. Im learning that catholics(some) say that asking Jesus to show himself is a work, and that im preaching works salvation. And that they wont ask Jesus for that, because they have him in the golden cage every sunday. And that a demon speaks thru me and i need to learn what the CC teaches.
Jesus paid the price in full. How this simple concept ecsapes the religious, can be explained in their having their eyes shut. Blindness. The veil was torn from the top to the bottom and now we can come directly to Christ without the need of a priest or animal sacs. To quote what the catholic church teaches;
which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church
“Conditions” Conditions layed on the backs of men by this church, which they imply with no uncertain terms is the catholic church. They want the people of the earth to think the word church in scripture refers to the catholic church. The catholic church takes mens sin and straps it back onto man, then gives him endless things to do if he wants to unburden himself. But, only the catholic church can unburden him. They used to sell this service to humanity, but had to find other means of exchange when it became too embarrassing. How morally corrupt and wicked can one be, to take sins that have been paid for and stuff them back down mens throats and tell them that only they can remove them. The people that believe this and go along with it, and the ones that perpetrate it will both have their rewards.
;
LikeLike
Bosco – ‘Jesus paid the price in full’ – that sums it up perfectly!
I confess that I only skimmed the bits from the Catholic Catechism and didn’t read it properly. You get the general idea quite quickly; they don’t get what it means that Jesus paid the price in full – they haven’t understood this and they have to add on extra bits.
LikeLike
Well, he did Jock. Happy now? 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – Yes! Bosco pointed out that ‘Jesus paid the price in full’ which sums it up beautifully.
LikeLike
Of course, we believe that as well. We just have a problem with the idea that it is immediately applied to every soul without any necessity for the sinner to have a sense of sin, sorrow for sin, the movement of the heart to ask for forgiveness and then trying to do their best not to sin again. It is all about the application of the Sacrifice of the Cross to each person that is argued: not the full price of the Sacrifice.
LikeLike
Servus – I still don’t see how indulgences help with any of these things.
LikeLike
Its merely an act of mercy by the Church for those who believe in purgatory and still have some penance that needs be perfected before they are completely conformed to Christ: in full communion with those in heaven.
LikeLike
Lets try this:
I’m throwing a baseball in the house though mom and dad told me not to do that. I break a window. Dad pays the price as he has a lot of money in the bank. I am crying and saying I’m sorry and asking for forgiveness. Mom and Dad forgive me though they ground me for 2 weeks. I couldn’t pay the price: Dad had to. I still have to do my penance because that is the price I have to pay for my disobedience. Mom intercedes for me a week later and says “Dad, I think he learned his lesson.” Dad then lets me off the hook for the extra week that I deserved. That is what an indulgence is.
LikeLike
As I said in the post, I wanted to throw this one out there to see whether I had misunderstood, so, perhaps uncharacteristically, I have been reading rather than responding – and interesting it is too.
I see what you mean, Servus, my friend, but I put the parable of the Prodigal to you as the real example of what God does with us.
LikeLike
There’s no difference really. Many sins bring with them earthly consequence that (if endured in the spirit of – I am receiving my just reward for my actions) pay the penalty through their sufferings. And, of course, when the prodigal returns (humiliated and defeated) the father rejoices and welcomes him. But no all sin is paid for in the way the prodigal did. Do they still owe something to satisfy for their disobedience and pride etc.? Perhaps they need to eat the corn for the pigs before they are ready as well.
LikeLike
I do wonder, if that were so, why Jesus failed to tell us. It would seem, if so, an important point. I can see why men might read this into Scripture, but I cannot read it out of it.
LikeLike
Jock hinted at it before: Moses and Aaron and the prophets all interceded for the sins of the people with God. Is the fulfilled faith of the Christian less able to intercede for us than the old faith of the Jews? Did he give the ability to bind and loose just to be stuck in a safe somewhere to lie idle or should it be used? It is in scripture but you don’t want to see it. The Church didn’t just make it up, but developed its understanding as to what incredible Grace and Power God conferred on them.
Catholics see ourselves and our Church in a family structure while Protestants (at least I did) see it as a ransom that is paid and we get instant salvation and applied to anyone who merely asks for it. If so, then why would Christ leave us here for all these generations? He could just apply His grace to every soul that is born and be done with it. The price is paid. You need do nothing.
As for me, I’m still over here trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling along with the Apostles. 🙂
LikeLike
We all work that out – in this life. Once we are dead we await judgement. That’s how I see it. Salvation is a process – but it can’t be aided by someone tweeting 🙂
LikeLike
There you go using that ‘Salvation’ word again where it doesn’t apply. 🙂
LikeLike
If we are saved, we are saved. If not, not all the tweets in twitterdom will avail.
LikeLike
And there goes Divine Justice up in smoke. 🙂
LikeLike
I think it is sinful man’s idea of God’s justice does that. Not one of us would sacrifice his son to save the world. When we understand that as God’s idea of justice, we shall get somewhere.
But first we have to lose the attitude of the Older brother – who clearly felt that about the treatment of the Prodigal.
LikeLike
Indeed the last shall be first and the first last — and the reward is the same and undeserved. It doesn’t mean that those who make it into eternal life will not suffer for their sins here or in some other state before they reach their reward.
LikeLike
We suffer here my friend – and much. God does not desire more suffering.
LikeLike
You’re right He doesn’t. We suffer because we cannot die to self and He does want us to do that: deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. We don’t do that too well unfortunately. Does God have enough Mercy to compensate for our stubborn adherence to this world and our comfort?
LikeLike
The thing we find most difficult, I think, is that the answer to that last question is always yes – all we have to do is to repent and follow Christ.
LikeLike
Agreement there, Geoffrey. Just not on what that forms of Mercy God utilizes. I find the Church an active partner with Christ and you see the Church as primarily a meeting place of praise and evangelization and perhaps organizing good works. To me the Church is supernatural in its spiritual gifts and its spiritual life due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And because of this gift it can exercise authority and distribute the Gifts Christ has given to the Church.
I see Joseph has picked up the subject at his website. Its very good. You might want to take a look.
LikeLike
I see us as working with God – but not needing to make restitution – because Christ took all that on Himself.
I shall look in on Joseph.
LikeLike
Servus ….. all such examples trivialise sin, the nature of sin and what it is that breaks communion between man and God.
You still haven’t dealt with the idea of ‘indulgence’ though – all this example does is gives a ‘Mickey mouse’ illustration of Moses interceding with God on behalf of the Israelites in the matter of the golden calf. Everybody has read that and, if they are Christian, has assimilated it – this has nothing to do with ‘Indulgences’, which is where the problem lies.
LikeLike
Jock – kind of like Jesus trivializing sinners by equating them to tares among the wheat? I figured you might see a modern parable as something more than the trivialization of sin. But then I am a simple man with simple ideas. I have to work with what I have been given. Joseph Richardson is writing about this: you may want to read his take as he is far more gifted than I in his education and explanations. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – why don’t you respond to the important part of the post? Namely, that your example could be seen to parallel the disobedient children of Israel and the intercession that Moses makes on their behalf, which has nothing whatsoever to do with indulgences.
I stated before (but you didn’t respond to this) – your example does nothing to support the doctrine of indulgences.
I agree that if we try to frame things in ways that can be understood there is necessarily a degree of trivialisation – but it seems standard of your technique to read and respond to the minor statement and ignore the main idea.
LikeLike
The Church exercising its authority to abrogate just punishment like a Mother might do with a Father is not an explanation? It is the love of God expressed through the Church to heal the afflicted and set the captives free. Not believing in purgatory: none of this will make sense. Not believing in the Church’s authority it makes it look like hocus pocus. It is the problem with any structure that when someone rejects one building stone, then the stones that rest upon it are unstable and the whole of the building becomes unstable. Seems that since the Protestants left the Catholic Church they have removed a great number of stones from the body and the whole is not seen: more like a building with holes in it. It’s a matter of faith and belief.
LikeLike
….. no, it’s not an explanation; this is exactly what Moses did when he interceded on behalf of the Israelites – and that does not fit into the framework of Indulgences.
Besides – if your son was a total cry baby, you would have bigger things to worry about than a broken window 🙂
LikeLike
Would it have been better if the story were about a repentant thief? I can make up other scenarios if you like but I think you get the idea of the Church using the Powers that Christ gave Peter and the Apostles to restore the offender before serving the full sentence for some act of piety: lets call it getting out of jail because of good behavior. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s a matter of truth. We do not see a purgatory hole in our building but an ugly barnacle on it as do the Orthodox who have never developed the concept.
LikeLike
Servus – Here’s where your example breaks down. If any son of mine began to cry under such circumstances I’d tell him to stop being a big fairy and I’d advise him to man up a little.
I might also start getting seriously worried about certain things …….
LikeLike
Jock – its a story not your particular story. I was only trying to show how the Church can intercede on the Sinners behalf and shorten the penitential period hastening the full restoration of the Sinner’s soul to the former state the soul had before the Sin. I thought it simple enough to understand; for God knows I’m no Einstein nor could I open the door for a true Scholar. So yes, my examples are as simple as I am. 🙂
LikeLike
If you remove the bit about the fellow starting to cry then as stories go it’s probably OK 🙂
I wonder if Babe Ruth ever broke any windows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth
LikeLike
OK, then, the kid didn’t cry (but he was a bit choked up). 🙂
Babe, another success story of an orphan raised by some good Catholic nuns. 🙂 I’m sure he broke a number of them while a boy. Not sure if he cried or if he got an indulgence though. 🙂
LikeLike
find there is a lot more understanding between us. Perhaps someone should organise a Watchtower convention.
I was brought up as a child to understand that salvation had three time perspectives.
a) In repentance and response to Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour I was (past tense) forgiven and released from the penalty of my sin.
b) I am being (as I continue working out my salvation present tense) delivered from the power of sin.
c) I will (future tense) be delivered from the presence of sin
I believe from a fair few scriptures that a) is the ground of my eternal security in Christ and that I know I am saved – I use the word ‘know’ rather than ‘believe’ as this explains my inner convictions and sense of what God has accomplished. Its more certain to me than a belief and say ‘believe I’m eternally secure’ would not be the whole truth of my position.
This understanding relates one’s view of what it means to be ‘born again’ Jn. 3; to be a child of God; or ‘having the Son and having His life’ Jn. Epistle.
Can we be reborn – unborn and born again again, can we be a child of one moment then through failure not then restored and a child again – can we have the Son not have Him regain Him. Is my salvation a lottery just where will I be at the moment of death?
As I see it my son is my son he was born that way, there may be many failures but he will never cease being my son. Similarly by Gods Grace through I have come into an un-dissolvable relationship with God. Theoretically I could dissolve that relationship but my failures do not constitute such an act.
You gave a scenario of a son doing wrong: forgiveness, consequences and indulgence, which I thought was very and drew out reality.
Scripture talks about God chastising us and that we reaping what we sow – I agree that there often are consequences to forgiven sin they may be imposed by God, inherent in the sin and or applied by the church. We have applied consequences in church as a father would towards a son, the purpose being learning and restoration not punishment. These consequences might then only be terminated on evidence of a spiritual change. The words of John the Baptist come to mind “go and bring fruit worthy of repentance”.
What concerns me about ‘indulgences’ is that they may be performed as legalistic acts that do not represent repentance and change of heart (I do not know is such would be unacceptable as an indulgence by the RC church).
LikeLike
Yes, there is more commonality than is often assumed.
LikeLike
The Church does not issue such indulgence as a legalistic act but as an olive branch of mercy to a sinner where other acts of penance have already been performed and absolution given for the sin itself. It is a positive motivation to ‘live the life’ not just go through life looking in the rear view mirror. It is proactive and focuses on doing the ‘difficult’ and ‘pious’ things in this life rather than only looking to the past and all the wrong we have done. So there are various pious acts that the Pope can attach an indulgence to that will help focus the sinner on his purpose here and indeed get him to try to live out what Christ expects: deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow me.
LikeLike
To answer other adjacent misunderstandings, this tract may be helpful: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences
LikeLike
for someone who doesn’t “want to rehearse it again” your doing a great job in doing precisely that.
You’ve got Indulgences, Purgatory and The Communion of Saints all in a nice package.
“‘Gradely, lad’ said the Duke,
‘Right-o boys… let battle commence.'”
LikeLike
It is quite true, and though many Protestants and the secular media are ridiculing the pope and the Church, I am glad for it: it opens the door for discussion and a presentation of the truth. Jesus asks that we bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us, and I will do just that.
Speaking of which, Geoffrey, by the way: I’ve recently been posting on the Baptist view of Baptism (part 1, part 2), and your input would be appreciated if you have any.
LikeLike
Joseph – thank you, I shall look in and comment.
LikeLike
NEO – your quote says it all as I understood Luther and the Catholic position: it takes away the external punishment of the sin and has nothing to do with whether one is going to Heaven or Hell. That is taken care of by admitting one’s sins contritely and seeking God’s and Church’s pardon and vowing to try to avoid those sins in the future. We leave salvation for God’s judgment.
And yes indulgences were supposed to, and do today, revolve around works of piety and love as Luther recommends. What he is opposed to was the illicit and corrupt manner in vogue during his day to charge for an indulgence: a form of simony which is strictly forbidden by the Church under the penalty of mortal (that is deadly) sin.
LikeLike
Neo, I forgot to get to your point about the bridegroom and bride one only need look up the references to bride to read both on Bible Gateway. Christ call himself the bridegroom and Paul speaks of the Church (those he was teaching) as the Bride – also called the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation.
Also I wanted to point out the line you quoted: “. . . one of the chief graces of indulgence is that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God, and all the penalties of purgatory are destroyed.” His comment then was that there were some who did not demand contrition for their sins and therefore (to a Catholic) had not received absolution for their sins. That would be an abomination to a Catholic.
LikeLike
Yes, the quote is what the quote is, and as of 1517 is accurate to his beliefs, which was, I think, when he was still trying to reform the RCC. I also note that indulgences have never, from it’s formation, had a place in the Lutheran Church. Why? I think because he could see no way in which a power of God would not be corrupted by men, because simony was a mortal sin then as it is now. And the antics of the priesthood in Rome had thoroughly horrified him
I know the references as well, and in some ways, I don’t find it overly important, we need to fit everything in a human structure to make it understandable to us-but it can get a bit convoluted, and in careless hands can elevate the priest above the Christ, which is, of course, not the intent. You see my point here, if we read objectively, Christ is the Groom, the church is the bride, and the priest is the father – I know that is not what is meant, at most the priest is the father of the bride, but it can be, and has been, misconstrued.
LikeLike
Indeed people do make some unlikely conclusions but the Church is pretty clear about it. The following is a short talk JPII gave in a general audience back in ’91.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19911218en.html
LikeLike
That’s a lot of the trouble we all have, people will (often intentionally) misconstrue anything if they think they can find an advantage in it.
LikeLike
That is a certainty, NEO. It is a danger that we all know too well as we run into it on a regular basis. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed it is 🙂
LikeLike
I wouldn’t overcomplicate things re: purgatory.
‘Purgatorium’ = purification. When we die we are all more or less damaged by sin, even if we have been forgiven. The doctrine of purgatory is basically saying that the encounter with God entails the removal of the scars left by long-forgiven sins, the stripping away of all that still holds us back and attaches us to earth – the unclouding of our vision so that we might behold God fully.
LikeLike
ether one is saved or they arent. Who told you that scars are left where one cant see god fully, only partially. Oh, ive got sin scars, i cant see gods legs or feet.
Your religion is pulling a con job on you. They tell you asking for salvation doesnt work. Scripture says, when your saved, youre coverd in the blood of the Lamb. God sees us as the righteousness of Christ. No scars of anything undone. I dont have to ask you which you believe; scripture or men.
LikeLike
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”
Its all pretty simple guys. It is called authority – given by God. We may not get it, and we do not have to. We may like it or we may not.
But we do need to accept the Word if we are going to follow the Bible, and not claim our own authority at interpreting it as trumping that of the divine lineage back to Peter, and thus Christ.
God bless.
LikeLike
Reclaiming the Sacred – you have done nothing to establish the connection between ‘binding and loosing’ and indulgences.
You have to explain how the biblical concept of ‘authority’ and the verse about Peter and the keys leads naturally to ‘indulgences’ – and you haven’t done that.
I can’t see the link. It isn’t simple for me.
For biblical ‘authority’ the encounter in Matthew 8 v 5 – 13 gives us everything we need to know.
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The centurion knows exactly why Jesus has authority -and we therefore know that Peter had authority precisely to the extent that he was true to the authority of Christ. He did not have ‘carte blanche’ to make it up as he went along.
LikeLike
Further it has not been established
1) What the statement of Christ to Peter meant “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”. There are various approaches and none of them has been spelled out.
2) It has not established that whatever this means about Peter’s authority that any succession is applicable.
3) The statement to Peter “I give to you the keys” should be compared to Christ’s statement to the Pharisees in which He accused them of not entering the kingdom and locking it up so that others could not enter. This was obviously a reference to their miss use of authority (symbolically use of keys). The points to notice are:-
a) The ‘keys’ authority was exercised by a whole group/class of persons
b) It was exercised in their teaching and instruction that deceived the populace.
4) Peter was the first to exercise the authority of ‘the keys’ preaching at Pentecost, resulting in the conversion of 3000. But there is no reason to read anything more into Christ statements to Peter than that as he had recognised the identity of Christ as Messiah and Saviour he was now in an authoritative position to open the door to faith, forgiveness and the kingdom of God even as the Pharisees were in their blindness and with their teaching closing them.
5) The authority first recognise / imparted to Peter is the authority of all those who know the truth of Christ with the courage to declare it. This authority extends to the ‘Priesthood of all Believers
6) Finally the Orthodox and undivided church have never accepted the Catholic understanding of the primacy of Peter and it has never therefore been upheld in an ecumenical council of the church.
LikeLike
All good points Rob. Thank you.
LikeLike
Rob – Concerning how these early Jewish followers would have thought concerning whether the binding and loosing could be passed down from Peter you need only look at the Keys in the Old Testament Church which were passed down to Jesus day. See Isaiah 22:20 ff 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
They understood the reality of their time and what the Keys were that Christ gave to Peter and how (like in the Old) this privilege would be passed down. We seem to forget that these were pious Jews who understood such things and were steeped in the idea that God gives blessings to people and that they could pass that blessing or authority on. It certainly wasn’t lost on the Apostles.
LikeLike
Servus …… proving nothing – in fact, precisely the opposite. If one examines the Prophets of the Old Testament, they are the opposite of Catholic Saints – in that Catholic Saints are always Good People, while the Holy Scripture always emphasises the human frailty of the prophets and shows that the only thing about them was the message that God had given them to pass on – and that, despite their human frailty, they were absolutely faithful to their calling.
If one tries to understand ‘the keys’ through the prophets, then this supports what Rob is saying.
LikeLike
Jock – that in the Old Law, God removed the keeper of the Keys (the Prime Minister) and replaced him with a better one and that this ministry lasted until after Christ: holding the keys to the earthly temple. The Jews understood quite well that what Christ gave Peter were keys to a Heavenly Temple that would not suffer decay. His Prime Ministry would last as long as we are operating outside of the Heavenly Temple on this earth. These Jews could not have missed this fact as there was nothing more central to their worship than the temple in Jerusalem and the function of the material keys which were hidden under the Foundation Rock of the Temple. Obvious to them and yet rather distant to us. The fathers of the Church got it right and followed a traditional understanding of what the Apostles knew instinctively from their culture.
LikeLike
I understand. However, it gets really complicated to debate all the nuances. When it comes to nuances, the conversation could become infinite, as their are so many.
Basically, either one trusts that Peter was given authority by Christ and could hand it down to his successors, or one does not.
If one does not trust that, then everything else will never make sense, as anytime ones personal mind finds itself questioning, that personal mind will trump as king over anything else that they find.
Really, the debate with any Catholic is always over authority. The debate with any non-Catholic is always over personal opinion – which is why there is so much splintering amongst those who are either not Catholic or Catholic but of a not-Catholic mindset.
Thanks for the reply. 🙂
LikeLike
Reclaiming the Sacred – As I tried to point out, I think it does boil down to authority; the person with authority has to be called by God and has to be faithful to his calling. The issue is how we determine the latter.
LikeLike
Yes, that is very true. It is in how we determine the latter.
God bless you.
LikeLike
Exactly right Jock
LikeLike
It is simple indeed. God gave that authority to Peter and to the other apostles (in terms of binding and loosing). The problem from my perspective is that He did not say: ‘And this is to be passed on via the Bishop of Rome, or by other successors of Peter.’ If He’d wanted that it would have been easy enought to have said.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – I think that the ‘centurion’ passage I quoted earlier is actually the key to understanding authority.
If one understands how the centurion knew that Jesus was operating strictly under authority, then we understand the whole business. It wasn’t because Jesus was wearing a white flowing Marlene Dietrich robe; it wasn’t because he had been elected by a conclave who had then sent red smoke up the chimney to show their support for the Labour party. It wasn’t because somebody sitting on a throne had given him an Armitage Shanks award signified by a red hat. We have to understand how the centurion knew.
If God has given somebody authority because they are faithful to God’s authority, then we know about it in the same way that the centurion understood about Jesus.
LikeLike
I think we need to be careful here Jock. Jesus was the Word of God Incarnate, and His authority cannot, I think, be compared to that of anyone else.
That is one reason I can’t see how the authority conferred on Peter and the Apostles by Jesus could be passed on.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – yes, but …….
The principle is clear, because the centurion knew exactly where he got his authority from – he spoke with authority (as a centurion) precisely because he was absolutely true to the authority above him.
And …. it was very clear to those under him that he was true to the authority above him – that’s why they submitted to his authority.
I take your point – and would therefore say that it would be better to make comparison with the centurion. If (people who claim to be) representatives of The Church are giving indulgences and claim to have the authority to do so, it will be completely clear to people of faith whether or not they are themselves under authority and, based on this, whether or not they have the authority they claim.
You’re right, though ….. we do need to be careful here.
LikeLike
Thank Jock – yes, we do need to be careful with authority – we have seen so much abuse of it within churches. The work of Satan, and it should not discredit real authority – but it makes it harded than it need be.
LikeLike
Geoffrey clarified that Peter was only one rock among the original twelve foundation stones of the church (apostles) of the church and that the right of succession does not derive from Peter alone – which is the constant claim of the Orthodox.
Paul was clearly also an apostle and others are also mentioned in the NT. Orthodox , RC and other churches also recognise many other apostles in church history – I believe usually use the designation in reference to the initial missionary into a country.
Others use the term apostle in a wider sense of any person whose gift, calling and evidence is that of church planting. In this sense God builds churches (Christian communities) around and upon people with a ‘rock’ like commitment and consistency to Christ and service to His church.
The church is built on Christ the foundation in secondary senses it is built on.
a) The unique ministry and authority of the original 12 apostles.
b) Upon Paul and other NT apostles – Paul’s authority as an apostle did not derive from the 12 but directly from the call of Christ but his authority was testified to when he went to meet the Peter and the other apostles at Jerusalem.
c) Then upon church planting apostles throughout church history
It is post ascension NT and later apostles that are spoken of in Ephesians 4
The statement to Peter ‘on this rock I will build my church’ is true in some respect to all with the same calling, qualities and ministry to be a foundation to a Christian community. Throughout church history in all branches of the church we see those whose lives have been a foundation on which the Lord has built such communities.
Further I think all will agree, it is not the idea of succession that we have problems with but the exclusive claim of the RC church and that succession is conferred by an unbroken line via laying on of hands. Succession is a spiritual matter not a mechanical one.
The concept of apostolic succession in the early church tracing a lineage to our origins was used as a tool in the combat of heresy. However some medicine can be more deadly than the disease. The concept has been used to justify the accumulated errors propounded by those who lay claim to such succession today.
LikeLike
Very true. That is why scripture reminds us that we should not rely on scripture alone.
“Hold fast to the traditions that were passed on to you, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
It is also noted several times in the NT that Christ taught many things to the disciples, but it never elaborates what those things were.
If scripture asks us to not to rely on scripture alone, then we have to ask who they want us to rely on. Seeing that it is tradition, we need to determine who has a direct line of tradition back to Christ.
Being that the Catholic Church has that line, and no other modern (i.e. within the last 600 years) church does, about 30,000 different Christian faiths have just been crossed out.
This leaves only the Catholic Church – or our own personal opinion.
At that point, we have to choose.
God bless you. 🙂
LikeLike
But your RC later tradition of the authority of Peter is one invented by man and evidently so as it does not derive from the earlier Orthodox faith of the undivided church that rejects it as heresy. Logically tradition derives from what is earlier not from later RC inventions.
Scripture speaks of two different sources of tradition and if you know anything you know that and it is decidedly less than honest not to make that plain. What is less than the whole truth is presented as a lie and we both should also know who fathers lies.
Further reference to 300000 different Christian faith is ridiculous almost all are expressions of the same faith being movements to spread the gospel. We could speak of in your terms different Roman Catholicism due to there being many different orders. That would be a misrepresentation of Catholicism as you have here either spoken without knowledge or deliberately attempted to misrepresent others – I have no way to determine which it is.
LikeLike
If they are all the same faith, why do they feel the need to divide and debate?
In that world, this conversation would not even be happening.
Different orders, as in Dominican, Franciscan, etc., do not split the commonly held belief. They simply place emphasis on one charism or another.
If you are referring to different splits in the Church who cannot get along and be of one mind, that was prophesied by many great saints and mystics. Catherine Emmerich said she saw them “splitting into different camps” and no one agreeing.
That is human weakness, and we will always have that to some degree (perhaps more now than in the past though).
But the faith itself remains one.
The statement that the RC faith was invented by man could easily be said to be an invention of man in itself, for the sake of division, and we all know who likes to divide…and conquer.
God bless you.
LikeLike
Are you incapable of understanding what anyone post that you disagree with or are you simply replying irrelevantly so as to cause confusion as I have experience with many cults.
I did not say RC was invented by man I referred only to the RC tradition on Peter’s supremacy that could not be a tradition received from the apostles as it was never held by the former undivided church.
I stated that the vast majority of what you have called ‘different faiths’ are nothing of the sort. They are not splits based on division but movement of evangelism. They work together in joint evangelistic efforts when such are organised on area or national initiatives. You are misrepresenting the truth in order to place what you say against the unity of the RC church as the claimant to be the sum total of the true church – an arrogant claim!
LikeLike
‘Are you incapable of understanding what anyone post that you disagree with or are you ….’
The answer to this is probably yes.
LikeLike
Jock, Rob, reading what you all say here, I think there is misunderstanding on all sides. 🙂
If you look at RTS’ blog you will get a better understanding of where she is coming from.
LikeLike
Dear Jess I did not think I misunderstood RCS.
I addressed 2 matters raised by RCS, who spoke about tradition to support the Cationic understanding of Peter’s supremacy. My comment about the tradition of Peter seemed to be deliberately twisted into a reference about the RC church in general.
I did this by reference to the fact that scripture speaks of tradition in 2 ways one of which is vain tradition. I then claimed that as the tradition RCS appealed to was not the tradition of the eelier undivided church that it was a vain tradition of man’s making. Geoffrey has made the same point with reference to the Orthodox Church as I also have.
RCS then turned this critique of one Catholic tradition into a statement about the RC as a whole – this was either a mistake or not a genuine analysis of what I wrote while RCS has consistently failed to address the points of the Orthodox position raised by myself or Geoffrey.
The next issue I considered was the false claim by RCS that other Christians belong to some 30,000 different faiths. This claim is often made by Catholics with the aim of presenting themselves as the totality of Christ Church.
There is an excellent video on this site under ‘Eclectic Orthodoxy’ and appreciation of the theology of Torrance presented by an Orthodox priest Jess maybe able to direct us to it which deals with a different concept of the unity of the Body of Christ.
I was offended by RCS reference to 30,000 different faiths and took it as a deliberate misrepresentation of other Christians. I have heard this from many Catholic spokespersons who know better hence the sharp reply to RCS. If RCS 30,000 faiths comment was an innocent repetition of the RC attack on the rest of the body of Christ I apologise for my sharpness.
I have worked with a number of the 30,000 faiths as ‘so called by RCS’ and have specific knowledge of many others and find them to be one faith. My understanding of the situation is born of experience.
For example there were hundreds of new churches started in the UK in the 60s and 70s and continuing. I was involved with one of them and met with many other churches.. They coalesced into dozens of associations of what others have called simply ‘new churches’. Hardly a name for ‘different faiths’ These movements that have formed are not splits or divided on the basis of doctrine but have organised around various persons or churches as a support base and for mutual support.
These movements are not exclusive to one another or towards older churches. People from them serve many other types of churches and vice versa.
The difference between them and c Catholicism (organisationally) is that they are not controlled by a central body with one head. Their unity is one of fellowship and shared spiritual life rather than organisation.
The movement that I have been primarily associated with over the last 25 years has churches of various origins associated with it and those also involved in other unions of churches. The movement I have been involved has assisted other churches of other historic denominations in training local leadership to avoid their decline.
There are also many Para-church organisations frequently emphasising evangelism or mentoring of young people. These are supported by a vast number of what you have called ‘different faiths’ who work together e.g. ‘Youth With a Mission’, ‘Dawn 200’, ‘British youth for Christ’, ‘University Christian Unions’, and various Christian business organisations with the aim of spreading the gospel through the business world.
Perhaps RCS is unaware of any of this or unaware of a totally different understanding of our unity in Christ than the Catholic view.
However it is misleading to call all these different faiths and neither is it how the vast majority of other Christians outside of the RC or Orthodox churches define or understand themselves.
If RCS knew this and much more that could be said then your allegation of 30,000 different faiths would be a lie if RCS were unaware of it the statement would simply be a mistake.
LikeLike
Rob – I have tended to let that Catholic trope go by. Either the Catholic concerned knows these are demoninations with much in common, in which case they are using it polemically, and no good will come of dialogue; or they don’t know, in which case one can then, as you have, show that that is not more the case than it owuld be if we said there were x number of Catholic churches – by which we would be treating all the Eastern Rite churches as though they were not the same.
I wonder if you’d consider writing a post on this Rob, as I find your thoughts interesting, and think others might.
GRSS
LikeLike
Geoffrey please see my post at the end of comments I should have made it a reply here
LikeLike
I saw it Rob – excellent.
LikeLike
I realize that you were referring to the RC tradition on Peter’s supremacy and that is what I was referring to as well.
I really only debate gentlemen, so if you want to act like one we can continue. Otherwise, being a lady and expecting to be treated like one, I really do not lower myself to insulting other people for the sake of a debate, or listening to such insults under the guise of debate, which is what it sounds like all that you want to do. Being that is not the sign of a gentleman, I am out.
God bless you.
LikeLike
Apologies – it did come across like that.
LikeLike
Thank you, I appreciate it.
No worries. I went back and read my wording and while I was thinking one thing, I typed the other, so I can see why you obviously thought that.
God bless you.
LikeLike
And you too 🙂
Of course, there is also the Orthodox Church, which does not seem to have received the oral tradition about purgatory – which given that it goes back to the beginning makes one wonder who has it wrong: the one who has it not, or the one who may have added it?
LikeLike
Thanks. 🙂
Yes, that is perhaps the final debate for anyone who seriously traces the lineage back to Peter – is it the Orthodox tho has it right, or the Roman Catholic?
“Seems” is probably the key word for the Orthodox, and I would imagine that it would take some research to really flesh that one out on their end.
It is hard with such early institutions as they did place such a prime value on the spoken word, often over the written. Which is where it can become hard to trust tradition for some, or trace it logically for others.
LikeLike
Hold fast the traditions. Who has been around from the time of Christ? The saved. Thats who. One saved spreads the word to others, and they do the same. All the way to today. The CC did its best to stamp those out. The traditions are charity, meekness, forgiveness and the rest. How can one that the phrase hold fast to traditions and twist it to say the bible doesnt have everything? Leave it to a religious person. Good brother Reclaiming doesnt want to bring up where Timothy say s scripture is profitable for everything we need. These devotees believe the CC is the be all and end all. It has all the extra grace the saints didnt use or all the forgiveness god has. And it dishes it out as it pleases. people actually believe that. i guess it takes all kinds.
LikeLike
For all you purgatory fanatics – doesn’t that simply shift the goal posts? What makes you so sure that people who go to purgatory won’t continue in sin when they’re there? What happens after that? Do they progress to purgatory 2? Is there some sort of hierarchical structure in all of this? Do you get an infinite series of purgatories?
LikeLike
This is one of the many reasons I cannot credit this idea.
It sounds like the sort of thing men would think up to justify their own authroity.
LikeLike
Now who is trivializing the mysterious state we call purgatory? Somehow I think God has it sorted out, Jock. They have seen a foretaste of the Almighty God and they know what awaits them: so they joyfully suffer the loving chastisement of being separated from His Eternal Glory for a time.
LikeLike
Servus – the mysterious state you call purgatory doesn’t exist (unless, of course, you’re referring to something connected with the porcelain throne).
LikeLike
Jock – your take seems to me more of a theme park replete with a reproduction of Big Rock Candy Mountain where everyone leaves with a participation trophy. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – I simply thought that purgatory was the natural state that happened to people after too many Indulgences. 🙂
LikeLike
See, you have it backwards, Jock. 🙂
LikeLike
Sam did the right thing. The Duke spoke the truth, but here there is no Bluecher.
LikeLike
I often feel in these excellent conversations that I’ve been dropped in the midst of the Rabbi and the Priest discussing a Sunday ham. The Priest finally asks, “when will you finally try this excellent meat?” To which the Rabbi responds, “at your wedding.”
It’s really a learning experience hearing all of these arguments from the many sources… Jess may have accumulated the resources for a great future publication… hmmm.
One question, how far back does the act of indulgences go? Any Ante-Nicene evidences?
Great topic here.
LikeLike
Here might be 2 starting places: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1054
and
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
LikeLike
Thanks… I could be way off, not having spent any time researching this topic that seems to have resurfaced the radio waves (local Catholic affiliate), but a quick search gives credit to Urban II as the first during the First Crusade (Webster). Puts it somewhere around the 11th century (Britannica).
interesting…
LikeLike
I think that the outgrowth could be said to have Biblical origins and the formalization was, as you say, probably somewhere in the 11th century – but hard to say exactly.
LikeLike
by the way… downloaded your two book mentions from way back up there where these responses began. Looking forward to getting in to them. Thanks
LikeLike
MT, I guess you mean the 2 by St. John of the Cross? If so, I think you will enjoy the depth of thought and the depth of his love of God you will find in them. They truly converted me to the faith.
LikeLike
I am unable to get the link I suggest below to work but it will be rewarding to view the video of Protopresbyter George Dion Dragas speaking on the unity of the church and the theologian Torrance. Although form neither traditions I was brought up on this view of the church and doubt I will ever be convinced differently. For me it answers the often repeated debate over 30,000 Christian denominations.
I still work in the world of business and would compare most of these 30,000 Christian movements to Franchises rather than competing businesses. A Franchise is often the vision of one person, a network of businesses of a unified brand, under local ownership, driven by entrepreneurial leaders. It distributes power and so avoids the disadvantages of top down management and bottlenecks it grows faster and spreads wider.
As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am content that the God of history is working in the history of his church and perhaps when its diverse expressions reaches 30 million movements rather than 30K with a monopoly by none we will have arrived at a different concept of our unity.
I do not think diverse organisations within the church a bad thing and wherever possible see what others call division in that way. Jesus had little to say about the church, his constant theme was the Kingdom and the doing of its business. If our emphasis was in similar proportion I am of the opinion we would be closer though diverse.
Franchise owners have their own emphasis sometimes do not agree and may argue but come together to further the brand and in so doing increase the business and its catchment area. Business is sometimes an enterprise exclusively of the children of darkness but it remains true that they are often wiser than the children of light and just maybe we can learn something from the comparison so as to fulfil our common ‘great commission’.
See Dragas on the unity of the church – you may wish to skip this early section about his personal relationship with Torrance. An Orthodox Appreciation of T. F. Torrance | Eclectic Orthodoxy http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/an-orthdox-appreciation-of-t-f-torrance/
LikeLike
Geoffrey A post on an alternative view of the unity of the body of Christ would be valuable.
However writing a post for me is very time consuming and a skill that does not come to me so readily.
I often do not know where to start or how to structure the topic and it involves many attempts and much editing to arrange my thoughts, whereas debate (which I am far better at face to face than in this medium) comes readily my mind observing inadequacies or fallacies in comments (as I see it) provides a ready answer.
If you think my post with the video link by Dragas suitable you may initiate a new thread by moving it.
Otherwise you seem to me to have that skill of concisely opening up an area for discussion and I would like to comment on any thread you start on theme – I hope you do not think that’s passing the buck.
LikeLike
It isn’t Rob. But you know, I think if you put what you have written in your last two comments into a post, it would work. I’d be happy to come in behind with the first comments. I love the way you are dealing with this – in fact, the first of your long responses to RSC would work as a post in itself.
LikeLike
I will give it a try
LikeLike
Rob – if you would like, I can have a go at editing them for you and creating a post; it is what we started off with with Geoffrey. Entirely up to you 🙂 Jess xx
LikeLike
Thanks due to Geoffrey’ nudge i have persisted and got of the starting block with “The Body of Christ Unity and Diversity”.
Thanks for the offer
LikeLike
I saw – very excited 🙂 A photo of you has been added, not sure why it didn’t come up in your by-line – nice to see it xx
LikeLike
Good to see your post Rob – I’ll join in and comment – there’s a lot there.
LikeLike
I hope His Holiness isn’t going off on indulgences, considering what it cost the Church and Europe the last time…One hopes a two millennium church might have learned something. ‘Hubristic’ doesn’t even approach it!
I can see the logic re both Purgatory and indulgences and if you buy the one, why you would want the other. They look to me, like an attempt to reasonably explore that white area on the map labeled: “Terra Incognita.” The Church’s attitude here is consistent as usual and i can see the reasoning. The same strikes me when the subject is the Big Bang or dark matter and energy. And plenty of theoretical physicists will read me out of the club if I proclaim doubts of those.
But as with dark matter, there are still some gaps, to me.
If Christ has saved me, and it’s all done now, then I can relax and do as I please, right? Wrong? I have to go on the straight and narrow? Then what do I need Christ for? Folk do that on their own. Do they get no credit? You have to sign up with Christ first? How is that just for all those who never had the chance? I guess I confuse easily. And the main one re Purgatory and indulgences: mortal vs venial sins. Once you’re onto that you need a less-than-Hell and if you send out agents who wave their hand saying: “Ego te absolvo” then indulgences must follow, I suppose.
But it seems to me, still terra incognita and therefore, a matter for belief more than one for reasoned debate. But hell, I don’t know nothin’…
LikeLike
Jack – you just outlined some serious thinking territory here – thanks.
LikeLike
Jack, that’s why Christ left us with His authority, the one true Church, because just as you said, we don’t know nothin.
LikeLike
A legacy custodian of His authority falls right into the line of logic and consistency for me, it makes good sense. If one believes it. Which, I suppose, is why faith is characterized as a gift…
LikeLike