He who holds the keys to the kingdom - the Catholic practice of granting indulgences

The Tablet ^ | February 18, 2006 | Robert Mickens

[magisterium]

That's true. And a plenary (full) indulgence can only be gained by a person who has cooperated with the grace of God in such a way that there is "freedom from the attachment to sin." That's pretty hard! Being merely in a state of grace is insufficient. Therefore, such a person (and that's probably most even attempting to gain an indulgence), gains a "partial indulgence" for the work at hand. Furthermore, our non-Catholic brethren might be open enough to see how *that* is pretty open-ended in God's favor! Since the indulgence is now "partial," and "partial" is not defined, it is up to *God* to decide what proportion to apply.

The pope and the bishops have control of the keys, but it's *still* God's house. Amen!

[twidle]

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me. I am a realist and have problem sometime with symbolic rituals and statements in religions.

Otherwise, this appears to be "cannabalistic" with some connection to the belief of human sacrifice practiced in pagan religiions. Jesus of course, the last human sacrifice to end all human sacrifices. Jesus was sacrificed for our sins so that we no longer have to give "live" sacrifices. (could this be the similar to ritual that Islamists are practicing today with the suicide bombers they refer to as "martyrs")

Most of us have difficulty thinking about actually eating or drinking "real" blood and flesh, but it did exist but not with Chrisitians, just symbolic. Jesus death is the way we were able to do away with live sacrifices when we committd sins. Never really understood how this decision was accepted other than he was God and he could make such a decision. So, I accept this communion, but symbolic only. I guess since God can do all things, he can make the symbols the real "blood" and "flesh" if he wishes and it is your belief that God does that with each communion, and of course the food is assimilated into our bodies for energy, etc.

Thanks for your guidance.

[magisterium]

I would only add here that in NO WAY does the Catholic hierarchy consider itself "successors to God" as twidle posits. God is God. Period. The bishops are merely successors to the Apostles, who were mere men. But men endowed with MUCH authority BY God. The Cliff Notes version of justifying this authority is found in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, but there is much more than that, of course.

At any rate, those Apostles and today's bishops have authority to "bind and to loose" NOT because they are God, but because He who IS God told them they have the authority.

[Jaded]

You're not doing a very good job of trying to CONVERT people.

[magisterium]

I understand your problem with this and reluctance to consider the Eucharist anything beyond symbolic. It seems cannabalistic to those unfamiliar with it.

But consider that the pagans that were persecuting the early Church *also* didn't understand it, and, by their misunderstanding, actually provide an unintended "witness" to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. They had heard that someone's body and blood were being consumed at Christian rites. Things heard second-hand have a habit of being mangled a bit, so they jumped to the conclusion that babies were being killed and cannabalized by the Christians in their "vile rites." They would not have formed this idea had it not been the case that, in reality, the Christians considered that they *were*, in fact, literally eating the Body and Blood of Christ. Much of the persecution of these Christians derives from the pagan horror of something that was true - the Body and Blood of Christ being consumed - being misunderstood as the type of cannabalism they had heard about among the barbarians.

They therefore provide telling witness to the deeply held Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist in effect from those days to our own time.

[Martina]

One of the most wonderful teachings in the Church is the teaching about the "Power of the Keys." The Catechism has an excellent description about indulgences.

[magisterium]

Here we go again! You never did answer several persons' questions, on another recent thread, asking point-blank: Did Jesus speak Aramaic to the Apostles or not?

We're not so stupid that we don't know what language the New Testament was writte in! Indeed, Matthew's Gospel was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, as there are far too many Semiticisms in it for things to be otherwise.

But you yourself seem to think the whole thing was written in Hebrew. You prove my point by insisting on Hebraicisms in many of your posts. For example, that the Holy Spirit be referred to as Ruach haKodesh. That, I submit, is NOT Greek.

I'd still like to hear your answer about the language spoken by Jesus in everyday conversation with both the Apostles and the common people He encountered in His ministry.

[bornacatholic]

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me.

* To speak of symbolically about "eating my body and drinking my blood" would mean the wordfs of Jesus here

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

... Really meant....

'WHOEVER PERSECUTES ME AND ASSAULTS ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."

Do you think Jesus intended to say that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him?

See the following for the symbolism of eating and drinking another's blood.

Ps 27:2

Isaias 9:18-20

Micah 3:3:2

Sam 23:15-17

Rev 17:6,16

to symbolically eat someone's flesh and blood is to persecute and assault them.

Even Luther got it right about the Eucharist. "of all the early fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacraments as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expressions as "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as "It is simply bread" or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present" or the like; since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blod are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative arguement should have turned up at least once, as it happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side." (Luther's Works)

*Please reread John Chapter 6. Jesus repeatedly speaks the truth about His real presence in the Eucharist

[bornacatholic]

Don't bother. Just try and ignore him. I have, repeatedly, asked him NOT to ping me. He does anyways.

I think of his pings as preparation for Lent :)

[Campion]

However we all Know that the Ruach haKodesh breathed all the Gospels and Epistles in Koine Greek for our understanding

And "We all Know that" how, exactly?

There's nothing in Matthew that says "only the Greek text is authoritative". There's nothing in Matthew that says "I'm writing this in Greek because that's the language the Ruach haKodesh wants me to use, although 'Ruach haKodesh' is Hebrew, and Hebrew seemed perfectly okay for Moses to write Torah, but clearly the rules have changed ..."

There is, however, tradition that is at least 1700 years old that states clearly that Matthew was written in Hebrew (which may mean Aramaic, but certainly doesn't mean Greek), at Jerusalem, for the benefit of Jewish converts.

[Nihil Obstat]

if people say Jesus spoke koine greek shouldn't they also say that Jesus used the Septuagint, written in koine greek?

[magisterium]

Why...yes! Give that man a ceegar!

News Flash:

Judaized Christian determines Jesus Christ and Apostles spoke Koine Greek! Vindicates Catholic position on Septuagint!

Film at 11...

[jecIIny]

"6 minutes ... a minor miracle."

Bad timing. A lot of people are eating supper. Its coming though...

[jecIIny]

"So, I understand from one of the posts that Maryland was established as a Catholic state. That is interesting to me. Wonder why Catholics would come to the new world? is area I will do some reading about."

In Protestant Great Britain at the time Catholicism was illegal. Being Catholic was considered a form of High Treason and was a capital crime. These people were fleeing religious persecution.

[Frank Sheed]

Use scripture to help exegete scripture.

No... Ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you! You can't possibly understand this on your own. If I was not a Christian, I'd make the mistake of thinking you were a lawyer parsing the meaning of 'is.' It isn't about how YOU understand it! That is what has left us with 30,000 denominations.

Frank

[Frank Sheed]

Hope this is symbolic "eating of the flesh". That is what communion is to me. I am a realist and have problem sometime with symbolic rituals and statements in religions.

Jesus Christ, God, can do anything! Why can't you believe He has substantially changed His Body so that it looks like bread, tastes like bread, digests like bread but is actually Him? He is quite specific in His instructions in the Gospel of John. Many walked away when He gave this command, "Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you will not have life in you." He didn't stop as those in the crowd filtered away. He turned to the Apostles and asked them if they were going to split as well. THIS is the key point. What a miracle Catholics receive at each Mass! Think what you are missing!

Beware of asking God to "come down off that cross and save yourself and we will believe in you!" God said it is His Body. I have Faith and I believe. I then ask God that I may understand!

[Nihil Obstat]

"Finally, why Christ's merit AND the Saint's merit? Does Christ not have enough merit of His own? He needs the Saints to chip in some of theirs??"

see St. Paul - Col. 1:24

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of His body, which is the church"

SALVIFICI DOLORIS
Pope John Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2SALVI.HTM

[Clay+Iron_Times]

God, can do anything!

All but one thing..... He cannot "lie"

[Zetman]

Speaking of Indulgences,

What cracks me up is that some Protestants have told me that Catholic clergy actually instruct the laity NOT to read the Bible. They claim that Catholics don't read the Bible. As someone who went to Catholic Schools for 9 years when growing up, this came as a total surprise to me!! However, after I became an adult, I was shocked to learn that many Protestants are VERY serious and persistent in this belief (or should I say 'mis-belief'??).

Of course there are at least 3 or 4 Bible readings (which change each day) in the Catholic mass, which seems to escape them. In addition, in every Catholic Church I have belonged to, I have always seen Bible studies offered during the week, for those who were interesed in attending.

On top of all of THAT, I look inside the front cover of the New American Catholic Bible I was given as a First Communion gift, and what do I see there? It says that if one sits down and reads the Bible on their own, a partial INDULGENCE is granted. Furthermore, it says that if one continues reading the Bible for more than 30 minutes, a PLENARY INDULGENCE is granted!! Sounds like a good deal to me!! We get an INDULGENCE for doing something that many Protestants claim that only THEY do!!

So, not only do Catholics NOT have to PAY for Indulgences, but they can actually earn them for free - simply by READING THE BIBLE!!

[Zetman]

Another thing that I noticed was that this article states that the Council of Trent outlawed the sale of indulgences. While this is probably true, the article makes it sound as if selling indulgences was allowed by the Church before Trent.

From what I have read, this is not true. The Church has ALWAYS forbidden the sale of indulgences. Indulgences have been sold, but from what I have read, such sales were done in violation of Church rules. Indeed, I recall reading that the Church cracked down on the sale of indulgences on various occasions several centuries before the Council of Trent. The article could have done a better job of clarifying this point, as well as a few others.

The online Catholic encyclodpedia has a really good article (but a bit lengthy) which discusses Indulgences. I am sure many of us have already seen it. For those who have not, and want to take the time to read it, it may clear up some misconceptions about what the Catholic Church believes about Indulgences (I know that it did so with me!!):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm