Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Posts Tagged ‘indulgence’

A Catholic Reading of 2 Corinthians

Posted by Tony Listi on December 17, 2010

Often in theological debates, Christians start throwing Scripture verses around from all parts of the Bible. While all Scripture is the Word of God and thus must be consistent in such a way that a coherent, non-contradictory message is present, I think this haphazard cafeteria/smorgasbord style of using Scripture can be very unhelpful, even dangerous at times. This practice also makes it easier for Christians to cherry-pick the verses that they like (often out of context) and that support their denominational beliefs and to avoid verses that they don’t like and that contradict their denominational beliefs.

We Christians cannot forget or deny that human beings, with their own human stylistic traits, emphases, and paradigms, did indeed write the Bible. Thus it seems certain that Christians can more fully understand the written Word by digesting it book by book, carefully examining and taking into account the unique context, tradition, and perspective contained within and historically surrounding each book and author. This method also seems to me an eminently, though perhaps not distinctly, Catholic approach to Scripture and its interpretation. None of the books were written by their authors with the Bible’s compilation in mind.

Thus I’d like to present how a traditional, conservative Catholic reads and interprets Scripture on a book by book basis. In this way, a Protestant may come to know what exactly a Catholic sees, thinks, and feels when he reads the Bible. Perhaps in this way and on this basis of what is our common ground, our common tradition, namely certain books of Scripture, the Body may be made one and whole again as Jesus prayed it would be and intended it to be…. Plus I’m tired of Protestants telling me that I’ve never read the Bible (when I have) and that they are the “champions” of Scripture (when they aren’t).

St. Paul’s  Second Letter to the Corinthians

This is a short and a bit of an odd letter. It primarily focuses upon the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians, not doctrinal teachings. This fact should give pause to Protestants who claim exclusive authority for Scripture, which includes such letters by Paul, rather than the writings of the Church fathers which claim apostolic authority for their teachings. The specifics of the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians are of limited relevance today, but the general character is of great importance.

There are two overarching Catholic doctrinal themes in this letter: apostolic authority and the necessity and ministry of reconciliation. In the face of doubters and false apostles, Paul is forced to reassert his apostolic authority. In dealing with a repentant sinner, Paul exercises his apostolic authority to forgive sins in the person of Christ and to indulge the repentant sinner in comfort rather than require more penance of him, demonstrating the ministry of reconciliation he mentions in the letter.

Paul’s letter does the following things with regard to the Protestant-Catholic divide:

  • Contradicts the heresy of sola Scriptura and upholds the authority of oral apostolic preaching and discipline in person (1:19, 23-24; 2:1, 3-4, 17; 3:2-6; 4:5-7; 5:5; 10:5, 9-11, 16; 12:19; 13:10-11)
  • Affirms apostolic/Church authority over lay believers (1:1, 21-24; 2:1; 6:11-13; 7:15; 10:8; 11:17; 12:14, 19; 13:2-4, 10-11)
  • Contradicts the fallibilism of Protestantism (2:17; 3:4-6, 12; 4:5-7; 5:5, 18-20; 10:5; 11:5-6, 10; 13:3)
  • Affirms the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (2:5-11; 5:17-20; 13:2)
  • Affirms the necessity of perseverance in obedience and repentance for salvation/to obtain heaven (1:24; 2:11, 15-16; 5:20; 6:1; 7:8-13; 11:3-4; 12:21; 13:2-5)
  • Contradicts certainty of knowledge of others’ or one’s own salvation (1:6-7; 5:20; 6:1; 7:13; 11:3-4; 12:20-21; 13:5)
  • Contradicts sola fide (5:10-11, 15; 7:1, 15; 10:15)
  • Affirms the necessity of the institutional and doctrinal unity of the Church (1:1; 11:2-4, 12-15)
  • Affirms the Catholic view of suffering (1:5-7; 4:9-11; 12:7-9)
  • Affirms the Catholic custom of referring to priests as father (6:13; 12:14)
  • Supports the Catholic doctrine of praying to dead saints (1:11)
  • Supports the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory (12:2-4)

I’m not going to comment on every single verse but rather on the ones relevant to the Protestant-Catholic divide or general conservative Christian doctrine. Very often, I will supplement my commentary with that of St. John Chrysostom (347-407). His was the earliest publicly available complete commentary on this letter that I could find. All emphases are mine. All verses are taken from the Revised Standard Version.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Biblical Exegesis, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Biblical Evidence for Indulgences and the History Surrounding Their Abuse

Posted by Tony Listi on December 19, 2007

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/explicit-biblical-evidence-for.html

Tuesday, September 04, 2007
By Dave Armstrong

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the
sins of any, they are retained.”

These passages form the biblical basis for priestly absolution (forgiveness),
and broadly speaking, for both papal and Church jurisdiction (by extension, for
the power to impose penance — binding, retaining — and to grant indulgences —
loosing, forgiving). Matthew 16:19 was spoken by our Lord to St. Peter alone,
and is the primary foundation for the concept of the papacy (along with the
preceding verse). Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 were directed toward the twelve
disciples. From these verses, among others, the Catholic Church deduces the
power and governing jurisdiction of the bishops (in agreement with the pope),
especially in an ecumenical Council such as Trent or Vatican II.

Karl Adam, in his marvelously insightful book, The Spirit of Catholicism,
comments on the Catholic belief in indulgences:

“The Church in virtue of her power of binding and loosing may supplement the
poverty of one member out of the wealth of another . . . All the main ideas
upon which the doctrine of indulgences is based — the necessity of expiation
for sin, the co-operative expiation of the members of the Body of Christ, the
Church’s power so to bind and loose on earth that her action is valid in
heaven — all these ideas are contained in holy Scripture.
So that although the historical form of the indulgence has undergone some
change . . . and may in the future undergo further change, and although the
theology of indulgences has only been gradually elaborated, yet in its
substance the doctrine is in line with the pure thought of the Scriptures.
Here, as in no other practice of the Church, do the members of the Body of
Christ co-operate in loving expiation. All the earnestness and joyfulness,
humility and contrition, love and fidelity, which animate the Body are here
especially combined and manifested.”

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 “I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord
Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my
spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man
to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus.” {see 5:1-2}

2 Corinthians 2:6-8,10-11 “For such a one this punishment by the majority is
enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be
overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him . .
. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive . . . in the presence of Christ, to
keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his
designs.”

St. Paul in his commands and exhortations to the Corinthians is in entire
agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences. He binds in 1
Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10, acting as a type of
papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10, much like St. Peter among the Apostles. He
forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the
offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are
acting as God’s representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the
remission of sin’s temporal penalties (an indulgence). In this as in all other
doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously
all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest
wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God’s Holy Scriptures.

Cardinal Gibbons elaborates:

“Here we have all the elements that constitute an Indulgence. First — A
penance, or temporal punishment proportioned to the gravity of the offence, is
imposed on the transgressor. Second — The penitent is truly contrite for his
crime. Third — This determines the Apostle to remit the penalty. Fourth —
The Apostle considers the relaxation of the penance ratified by Jesus Christ,
in whose name it is imparted.”

The doctrine of penance was indisputably believed and practiced by the early
Church, as reputable Protestant Church history reference works admit. It
was firmly established in the early Church, and did not substantially change in
the Middle Ages, but was only developed, like all Catholic doctrines. It was the
subject of much reasoned speculation and discussion among the Scholastics (such
as St. Thomas Aquinas), but it was neither invented nor distorted at this time,
as the above biblical evidence proves conclusively.

As penance is the imposition of (and, it is hoped, voluntary acceptance of)
temporal punishment or penalties for sin, so indulgences are the remission or
relaxation of these same temporal penalties, by virtue of the prayer and
penitence (of various sorts) of others in the Church. The doctrine of
indulgences presupposes both the Communion of Saints and the treasury of
merits, ultimately derived from the Person and work of Jesus Christ, secondarily
through the holiness of the saints and especially the Blessed Virgin.
The Church has the jurisdiction to mercifully dispense these accumulated merits
to those who possess less merit (see 1 Corinthians 12:26). Indulgences are
a logical extension of infused justification and penance, and are essentially
the same as any spiritual or temporal benefit applied to a person due to the
prayer of another. In both cases, one Christian is assisted by the loving act of
another.

The Council of Trent forbade the selling of indulgences, since abuses had become
scandalous in the preceding period, thus agreeing with Luther and the
Protestants on this point, while retaining the doctrine itself (not wanting to
“throw the baby out with the bath water”). In recent decrees on this
doctrine, the Church has stressed that the pious disposition of the receiver of
an indulgence is of foremost and primary importance (similar to the use of
sacramentals, such as holy water).

To summarize, Catholics believe that sin causes a cosmic disturbance and is a
direct insult to God, our Creator, and that it also perpetuates destructive
tendencies and practices in the individual and disastrous results within the
Church and the human community. Sin effects a breach in our “friendship”
with God, which requires some sort of reparation.
Penance and indulgences are complementary aspects of the thoroughly biblical and
harmonious Catholic system of theology wherein actual, infused justification (as
opposed to merely imputed, forensic, or declared justification) takes place. If
indeed, God’s goal is to free us of sin in this life — as Catholics believe —
then the expiation and elimination of sin is of the utmost importance: hence the
doctrine and practice of penance.

Past Abuse of Indulgences
Bertrand Conway writes of the controversial history of indulgences:
“Catholic historians — Gasquet, Pastor, Janssen, Michaels, Paulus — have
frequently mentioned the abuses connected with the preaching of Indulgences in
the Middle Ages. The medieval pardoner . . . was often an unscrupulous rascal,
whose dishonesty and fraud were condemned by the Bishops of the time. We find
orders for their arrest in Germany at the Council of Mainz in 1261, and in
England by order of the Bishop of Durham in 1340. To indict the Church for these
abuses . . . is manifestly dishonest . . .

“It is comparatively easy today to get monies for any charitable enterprise, for
we can appeal to thousands by letter, post, radio or the daily press. In the
Middle Ages, when men wished to build a church or support a worthy charity, the
Bishop or Pope granted an Indulgence, which first of all called upon the people
to approach the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, and then ‘to lend a
helping hand’ in some special work of charity. The Council of Trent, following
the Councils of Fourth Lateran [1215], Lyons [1245 and 1274] and Vienne
[1311-12], condemned in express terms ‘the wicked abuse of quaestors of alms,’
and, because of the great scandal they had given, ‘abolished their name and use.’
“While Catholics believe that the building of St. Peter’s in Rome was a matter
of interest to the whole Catholic world, they heartily condemn with Grisar and
Janssen [Catholic historians] the manner of financing the Indulgence, and the
exaggerations of the preachers in extolling unduly its effects and privileges.

“No one believes today the calumnies against Tetzel’s character. Luther did not
speak the truth when he asserted that ‘Tetzel sold grace for money at the
highest price.’ As both Pastor and Grisar point out, we must carefully
distinguish between Tetzel’s teaching with regard to Indulgences for the living,
and Indulgences applicable to the dead. With regard to Indulgences for the
living, his teaching, as we know from his Vorlegung and his Frankfort Theses,
was perfectly Catholic . . .
“‘As regards Indulgences for the dead,’ Pastor writes, ‘there is no doubt that
Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions,
proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was
required to gain the Indulgence for the dead, without there being any question
of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with an opinion then
held, that an Indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing
effect . . . The Papal Bull of Indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this
proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in
1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church’ (History of
the Popes, vol. 7, 349). Cardinal Cajetan at the time condemned Tetzel’s
opinion, and taught that ‘while we may presume in a general way that God is
willing to accept Indulgences for the dead, we have no certainty whatever that
He does so in any particular case. That is the secret of God alone.’ In 1477
Pope Sixtus IV had expressly taught that the Church applies Indulgences for the
dead ‘by way of suffrage,’ for the souls in Purgatory are no longer subject to
her jurisdiction. They receive Indulgences not directly, but indirectly, through
the intercession of the living.”

Posted in Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Religion and Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »