Talk:Indulgence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:25, 8 June 2005

Do indulgences still exist in the Roman Catholic Church

Today, indulgences does not exist in Roman Catholic Church

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. Smerdis of Tlön 04:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, can we withhold judgment on whether Luther was correct in characterizing the marketing of indulgences as a sale of indulgences? Hasdrubal 02:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Your remark suggests that there isn't really a controversy to withhold judgment on, there being no difference between "marketing" and "selling". -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:13, 5 Apr 2005 (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.

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. Essjay 06:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :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)
+*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.
+: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)