Jump to content

Talk:Indulgence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(162 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=no|archives=no}}
== Do indulgences still exist in the Roman Catholic Church ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Low |catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Mid |eastern-orthodoxy=yes|eastern-orthodoxy-importance= |lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=mid |theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}
}}
{{archive basics|counter=2}}
{{archives}}


⚫
== Luther ==
:''Today, indulgences does not exist in Roman Catholic Church''
"Everyone knows" that Luther condemned indulgences in the 95 Theses: it is reported widely in supposedly WP:RS and in the current article itself. The trouble is, it is not exactly true: if you look at article 71 and 72<ref>{{cite web |title=Martin Luther 95 Theses: The Full Text |url=https://www.uncommon-travel-germany.com/martin-luther-95-theses.html |website=Uncommon Travel Germany |language=en}}</ref> you get a better foundation:


71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and cursed.
Is this true? I can understand why they might not be ''selling'' them anymore. But my understanding is that indulgences could still be obtained by performing ritual acts like praying to certain saints or going on pilgrimages to shrines and so forth. At least, this was the impression I got last time I spoke with the Blue Army rosary ladies, which has been a few year. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 04:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


72. But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of pardons naughty and impudent words.
Also, can we withhold judgment on whether Luther was correct in characterizing the marketing of indulgences as a sale of indulgences? [[User:Hasdrubal|Hasdrubal]] 02:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There will be others with a better understanding, but Luther at this stage limited indulgences relative to the Gospel, and decried abuses, but explicitly allowed apostolic pardons (from the power of the keys) which relate to the remission of penalties not some alternaive route to the forgiveness of sins. Even in 1525, in his Bondage of the Will, he described the issue of Indulgences as comparatively trivial or superficial.
:Why? Your remark suggests that there isn't really a controversy to withhold judgment on, there being no difference between "marketing" and "selling". -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 04:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


So may I suggest that editors should be careful to use "abuse of indulgences" or "unsound promises about indulgences" or "simony" etc. rather than the blanket Luther condemned "indulgences." [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*The statement "Today, indulgences does (''sic'') not exist in Roman Catholic Church (''sic'')" is incorrect, both doctrinally and grammatically. Indulgences do still exist in the RCC, and they are earned (never sold) for performing various actions. (In 1567, Pope Pius V, following the Council of Trent, forbade the attachment of indulgences to any financial act, including the giving of alms.)


:For example, praying the Angelus each day earns a partial indulgence.


== Confusing ==
:As for whether Martin Luther was correct or not, I believe this is an issue of POV. What should be said is "Martin Luther characterized the marketing of indlugences as a sale of indulgences." If anything else, it could be said, equally NPOV, that the RCC denies this. ''Whether'' Luther was or was not correct in his assessment is a matter of opinion, not fact, and is inherrently POV, but ''that'' he made the assessment is a matter of fact and NPOV. Equally so, ''whether'' the RCC is or is not correct in believing that Luther was incorrct is a matter of opinion; ''that'' the RCC holds this position is a matter of fact. [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] 06:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


Howdy! I'm not sure how to improve this article. I find it extremely confusing. I was raised Catholic, and I have some understanding of indulgences, but this article goes over my head. I think there are too many words that are not clearly defined in a way that a layman would understand. There also seem to be quotes from Scripture or from historians that I think would be more effective if paraphrased in lay terms, rather than left as is.
*Yes, indulgences still exist; a very important teaching, it's not something that will someday "not exist." The problems in those days was that the Church became corrupt, and indulgences were being sold. I think I can safely assume all indulgences sold were invalid, since it was not done by Church teachings/rules; it was all money and words/lies. Luther had a reason to oppose it of course, but didn't really work to fix it; he went off to start his own denomination. ----Sp3ctre18


An example is the second quote in the lead paragraph ("a remission...prescribed conditions"). The quote might be fine if the terms used in it were directly and plainly defined immediate after. What does remission mean in this context? What is a temporal punishment? Why is there punishment if the sin is already forgiven? These things seem to get covered later in the article, but it would be nice to have a quick explanation up front.
==Overhaul==


Other examples are "severe penances of the early church", "intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom", "treasury of merit", penance vs Purgatory, etc.
I've overhauled this article; I'd appreciate a review or imput on the "other Christian traditions" section, as I can only speak to the Catholic and DOC positions. [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] 09:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


To me, the intro feels like it's written for folks who already know this, rather than being helpful for someone who may be less familiar. I think it might benefit for someone to explain it without using church lingo. If possible 🙂
==Other Christian Traditions==


Maybe better examples are in the next section.
The section on other Christian traditions may require some nuances. Most Protestants reject a doctrine of purgatory, but not all. C.S. Lewis is an obvious (but not lone) example. Orthodox Christians definitely reject "Purgatory" under that Latin name, but many suggest other ways that souls may be cleansed or purified after death that most Catholic theologians would consider "a distinction without a difference" (c.f. [http://www.geocities.com/swickersc/get-clean.html this Catholic "Cleansed After Death" article]). So while it is generally safe to say that neither Protestants nor Orthodox believe in purgatory or grant indulgences, there are some similar beliefs and practices among them. [[User:Johnaugus|Johnaugus]]
"[T]hey acquire the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment." What is a liability of guilt and what is a liability of punishment? What does liability mean in this context?
: I can't recall anything in Lewis that suggests that he believed in Purgatory (The Great Divorce, for example, begins with an explicit disclaimer that he is *not* speculating about conditions in the afterlife, but presenting an allegory). The article on Purgatory makes a similar claim for Lewis -- any citations?
--[[User:Jrcagle|jrcagle]] 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


"[T]o separate a person from [God] to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection, a consequence known as the "eternal punishment" of sin." I think this is saying that damnation is the penalty, but it's really not clear. I'm not sure what "to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection" means or what clarity it brings. Maybe there's some missing punctuation?
== Confession ==
[[User:Kastchei|Kastchei]] ([[User talk:Kastchei|talk]]) 03:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In another occurrance of the continual war to change Reconciliation to Confession, this page has now been hit. I've said it before, and I'm sure I will have to say it again. The Catechism says Reconciliation, the Code of Canon Law says reconciliation, JP2 said reconciliation, B16 says reconciliation, and Francis Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments says reconciliation. It isn't called confession anymore, it is RECONCILIATION! -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 04:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

⚫
== Simony ==

Does the concept of [[Simony]] relate to the practice of Indulgences especially during the dark ages when Indulgences were one of the main issues spawning the Reformation?
: Simony (the selling of church offices) begins not in the "dark ages" -- which are generally taken to be the period between the fall of Rome and the ascendency of Charlemagne or perhaps Otto I -- but somewhat later. The practice occurred at the highest levels in the 11th century with Gregory VI; Gregory VII condemned it [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-reform1.html]. The Reformation is linked to simony in a way. The Archbishop of Mainz had to pay a rather large fee in return for his post, and his authorization of Tetzel to sell indulgences was a way to recoup the losses (Cameron, p. 100). Whether or not this was ''simony'' is probably debated; the fee was I believe technically a fee for the dispensation to allow the under-age Mainz to take the post.--[[User:Jrcagle|jrcagle]] 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:46, 3 January 2025

Luther

[edit]

"Everyone knows" that Luther condemned indulgences in the 95 Theses: it is reported widely in supposedly WP:RS and in the current article itself. The trouble is, it is not exactly true: if you look at article 71 and 72[1] you get a better foundation: 

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and cursed.

72. But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of pardons naughty and impudent words.

There will be others with a better understanding, but Luther at this stage limited indulgences relative to the Gospel, and decried abuses, but explicitly allowed apostolic pardons (from the power of the keys) which relate to the remission of penalties not some alternaive route to the forgiveness of sins. Even in 1525, in his Bondage of the Will, he described the issue of Indulgences as comparatively trivial or superficial.

So may I suggest that editors should be careful to use "abuse of indulgences" or "unsound promises about indulgences" or "simony" etc. rather than the blanket Luther condemned "indulgences." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Confusing

[edit]

Howdy! I'm not sure how to improve this article. I find it extremely confusing. I was raised Catholic, and I have some understanding of indulgences, but this article goes over my head. I think there are too many words that are not clearly defined in a way that a layman would understand. There also seem to be quotes from Scripture or from historians that I think would be more effective if paraphrased in lay terms, rather than left as is.

An example is the second quote in the lead paragraph ("a remission...prescribed conditions"). The quote might be fine if the terms used in it were directly and plainly defined immediate after. What does remission mean in this context? What is a temporal punishment? Why is there punishment if the sin is already forgiven? These things seem to get covered later in the article, but it would be nice to have a quick explanation up front.

Other examples are "severe penances of the early church", "intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom", "treasury of merit", penance vs Purgatory, etc.

To me, the intro feels like it's written for folks who already know this, rather than being helpful for someone who may be less familiar. I think it might benefit for someone to explain it without using church lingo. If possible 🙂

Maybe better examples are in the next section. "[T]hey acquire the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment." What is a liability of guilt and what is a liability of punishment? What does liability mean in this context?

"[T]o separate a person from [God] to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection, a consequence known as the "eternal punishment" of sin." I think this is saying that damnation is the penalty, but it's really not clear. I'm not sure what "to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection" means or what clarity it brings. Maybe there's some missing punctuation? Kastchei (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Martin Luther 95 Theses: The Full Text". Uncommon Travel Germany.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indulgence&oldid=1267074562"