Thanks tom, I’m guessing you’ve answered this before? 
So if I said “sin entails separation from God (spiritual) and “tarnishing” of the soul (temporal)” would I be close? Similar to a failing a loved one, the forgiveness is a given but the personal shame of the failure remains in the mind.
Now as the merit of good works by others out weighs the “tarnish” of sinful works there is a mechanism whereby the “tarnish” on the soul can be alleviated through use of other’s good works. Hence the linking of the sinner “indulging” in the benefits of the treasury. Interesting.
I see here many back and forth about RCC and it’s “problems” (as some people see them). The problem I see is that offically or even what many Catholics would say, things like idolitry and the like aren’t what RCC is about. But that doesn’t mean that many Catholics don’t fall into that catigory.
Take confession for example. As has been explained to me by several Catholics, the priest has no power to absolve sins. Nor do hail Mary’s and the like. But, I have known many Catholics who DID think the priest could absolve sins, directly. They felt that they could do whatever they wanted, so long as they went to confession.
I have also known many Catholics who pray to Mary and the saints more than Jesus/God.
And this has been the way the majority of Catholics I have known have been. I am not saying that the strictures of RCC are wrong, but it may be that if not ephasized correctly, it can lead to it’s believers to come to the wrong conclusions too easily. Or at the very least, those types of people (quite likely a minority of Catholics) simply stand out more easily, just as a bible thumper or fundie can stand out.
So, while it may be wrong to say “Catholics are idol worshipers”, that doesn’t mean one should ignore the possibility that some Catholics do go down that road because the road is more readily available. Just as people can be lead to be bible worshippers instead of followers of God.
Can I ask about indulgences for a second? I was in Rome last year, and visited several sites where indulgences were still offered, although it seemed one must do something to “earn” them.
One was the crypts of the Cappuchin monks, which are famous (or infamous) for being decorated with thousands of bones. Near the entrance to the crypt, a small sign informed me that if I entered the crypt on a certain Sunday in October (damn, I was exactly one week late), I would be granted an indulgence.
The second was the Holy Steps, supposedly the steps that Christ ascended after carrying the cross. I was informed there that if I ascended the steps on my knees while saying the appropriate prayers, I would be granted an indulgence, maybe even a plenary indulgence (I can’t remember for sure).
I also seem to recall something above the entrance to the Pantheon about indulgences. Were they sold there?
Being Protestant, I am fascinated by the idea of indulgences for sale rather than penance.
OK, I found something on the Steps. It appears that Pope Pius X decided in 1908 that a plenary indulgence could be gained as often as the stairs are devoutly ascended after confession and communion. A previous pope, Pius VII, had granted those who ascend the stairs in the prescribed manner an indulgence of nine years for every step.
(cite is from the Catholic Encyclopedia on newadvent dot org)
So, a standard indulgence is time knocked off of your stay in purgatory?
Apparently. The stain of the sin remains and needs to be worked out. Purgatory and the indulgences from the treasury seem to be the removers of the blemishes on the soul.
I think. I’ve been taking notes, but … well you know.
Using casual shorthand, yeah.
As you may have inferred, I’m not keen on the way it gets discussed or handled in Catholic writings. I have read (many years ago so that I cannot quote them, now) different deeper theological discussions of the issue and I can see where the theological tradition arose. However, it never seems to make it from the “deep” theology to the “popular” lessons in one piece, and I doubt that I do the “deeper” meanings justice.
Since I do not believe that the RCC does a good job of explaining the underlying theology to its own adherents, my position is that they ought to stop publishing stuff that confuses the majority of Catholics and leads to rather dumb misunderstandings. (Beyond which, the language is couched in “legal” terms–and I understand how that has come to pass–but such terminology goes even further in making the whole issue more ridiculous than edifying.) One aspect of situations such as the “Steps” you encountered was that the actions to be performed (as pronounced by the pope, although not, necessarily, as heard by the faithful) were to be acts of devout penitence, involving a sincere effort to turn one’s heart to God rather than simply performing some activity ritualistically while performing rote prayer. This comes back to my general objection: if one reads the underlying theology, one can discover true attempts to understand the ways in which people can turn their hearts to God, looking for support from the Grace of Jesus and the good will of all the faithful. However, when an indulgence is declared, all that theology is “assumed” and the only thing published is the legalistic ritual, which fails to describe the theology and turns what might have been a valid event to help a person turn to God into a legalistic, mechanical ritual of no apparent meaning.
Grey, yeah, we’ve touched on it a time or two. The most extensive earlier discussion was in the thread What’s the Catholic Church’s position on this? from three years ago. Several people provided good information, but my recap is near the bottom.
sghoul, I would, to a certain extent, agree with you, although I suspect that you are recalling views of older Catholics that are not that common, today. Few Catholics under fifty today, in the U.S., are actively involved with elevating saints to minor deities.
Tom~: Thanks for the explanation – while I’m still not at all comfortable with the underlying theory, it does make a bit more sense in the context you set it in. Kind of a like the dialogue:
“Hey, I’m really sorry I broke your lawn statue at the party at your house the other night. What can I do to help repair or replace it?”
“Hey, you’re forgiven. And don’t worry about replacing it – Vince dePaul had one in teh warehouse that he gave me. Instead, help the next guy that has this sort of problem out, willya?”
“Sure! And thanks!”
The transubstantiation question is really only a matter of metaphysics: should we explain how something we agree on happens according to this semantic construct, or not? But I’d be really interested in your perspective on the Marian doctrines.
IMHO, Protestantism (including the Methodism I grew up in) fails to give Mary the honor that the Bible itself indicates is hers. For fear of sounding Catholic, we would put her on the shelf, bringing her out at Christmas to acknowledge she was the mother of the Baby Jesus. But Catholicism, it seems to me, goes too far in the other direction, and in particular in mandating as articles of faith the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The way I feel about it is, if God wished to take care of the woman who would bear the Son in that way, fine, but why make it a dogma? (Dogface may have something useful to say here on the Theotokos – which I think the majority of Anglicans and virtually all Methodists would be surprised to find is official doctrine of their churches as well!)
My attitude has always been that if it made Pius IX happy to declare those as “truths,” they don’t interfere with my life. I certainly do not think that either belief is central to Christianity–and they are not central to my faith. I can’t prove that they are errors, so I don’t make a point of fighting with dead popes about it.
From the Orthodox perspective, transubstantiation is simply unnecessary. It happens. It’s miraculous. We don’t understand the mechanism. Upon faith we accept it and don’t need to diddle with details. Or as one of the Fathers wrote: “Some matters we accept in reverential silence.”
The term Θεοτοκος was officially applied by the Third Ecumenical Council in part as a remedy against the pernicious errors Nestorianism. Nestorianism taught that the Λογος merely “inhabited” the body of the “man Jesus”, that God had not entered into full hypostatic union with a human nature. Instead, there were essentially “two Christs” who had a “junction” but not a union. Thus, there was the “mortal Jesus” and the “Divine Savior”, distinct beings who were united. A corrolary to this Nestorianism is that the Virgin Mary was not, under any circumstances Θεοτοκος, that is “bearer of God” or “mother of God”. She was only the mother of Christ’s “human portion” or only the mother of the “man Jesus”.
In this day, there are very many Protestants who wholeheartedly embrace the heresy of Nestorianism.
Not quite. Long time ago penance for sin was really hard (none of those 3 Our Fathers and 2 Hail Marys) your penance could last months in which you would have to fast or pray or whatever. The indulgence takes time from that not from purgatory. In modern times there are only 2 types of indulgence plenaty (all) and partial.
It never was “time off” Purgatory although I’m sure many believed that.
Dogface explained well that Eastern Christians, both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics) are not too keen on explaining everthing, their outlook is more spiritual the us Latin guys. By the way I mean spiritual in the good sense, not on the “New Age” “touchy-Feely” way.
And here, we have two total canards.
Oh, yeah? Here are a whole bunch of canards:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/tools/duckdist/duckdist.htm
Gobear:
Of course it different, they’re friggin dead! If you think that saints exist as separate supernatural beings, you are putting other gods before God.
Only if one holds to the notion that the dead are either non-existent or in suspended animation until the Final Judgement. Those who hold that the dead are beings who are separated from this life, but able to perceive the physical world from a spiritual perspective see the dead, the saints, as simply friends and relatives who have made the transition out of this life. They are as capable of interceding for those still living as one’s next-door-neighbor or pastor.
As noted, above, I suspect that any number of people who have prayed to the saints have, indeed, stumbled into a form of polytheism. However, insisting that that is the only possible conclusion requires one to make a number of separate assumptions, none of which are more demonstrably true than the existence of God, itself.
Incorrect. Such a practice as the one you’re denouncing is not different than a belief in angels assisting the one deity of a monotheistic faith.
Catholicism is a cult. They deny that the Bible is true. They say salvation is by faith plus works. That is a lie. Salvation is by faith alone. Therefore, Catholicism is a cult.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry, johnny, but we’re fighting ignorance, here, and you’re spreading it.
The Catholic Church says that all are saved by Grace. Faith and works is actually a different issue, one that is badly misrepresented by a few people who mindlessly hate the RCC.
The Catholic Church does not deny that the bible is true (although, if you are a bibliolator literalist, you may find some of their views uncomfortable regarding how to read the bible).
And you have, interestingly enough, demonstrated a point I made a few days ago regarding the different definitions of cult. My fourth definition as found in my post of 07-12-2003 09:23 AM on this very thread said:
You will note, however, that while the usage exists, it is a rather ignorant meaning that ignores both etymology and history.
Cite?
I.e., prove your assertions from what they have said, not from what Jack T. Babybird and his cohorts have claimed that they say.
Not one statement in that post is true. To state it as truth is to bear false witness. It is also, in my opinion, looking for an excuse not to love one’s neighbor, thus looking for an excuse to deliberately disobey the commandment Christ, Himself gave us. I may not be able to embrace all the teachings of the Catholic Church myself, but at least I never hear them saying the Baptist Church or the various Fundamentalist Churches are cults.
johnny miles, if you’re interested in spreading lies and ignorance, please do it elsewhere and, while you’re at it, do it in someone else’s Name. Better yet, lurk, read some similar threads, both here and in the BBQ Pit, recall that if you are a Christian, you are commanded to love God with all your mind, and think before you post.
Respectfully, believe it or not,
CJ
I have just happened across this thread and read it with great interest; so yes, these things are worth discussing, no matter the response of the original poster. One point: I grew up (more or less) Methodist and was a fairly committed one for several years in my teens. I cannot ever recall hearing anti-Catholic sentiments expressed, and as my mother is a Catholic, I would certainly have taken notice. For that matter, I’ve been a Catholic myself for three years, and have never heard anti-Protestant views expressed (except for one brand-new priest, 23 years old and, I suspect, still in love with the uniform).
Polycarp, you are obviously well-versed in this topic; I’ve never really understood the doctrinal (as opposed to historical) differences between the RCC and the Anglican Communion. Perhaps you would elucidate? Or maybe this is a topic for a whole 'nother thread?