• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Indulgences: The World's Most Misunderstood Spiritual Gifts

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Indulgences: The World's Most Misunderstood Spiritual Gifts

By: Mark Shea

Most Catholics live and die blissfully unaware that the Church even offers indulgences anymore. (A Catholic friend to whom I mentioned I was writing this article said, "They went out with Vatican II, didn't they?") Practically no Catholic gives much thought to them. They languish in the Church's attic of doctrinal knick-knacks.

So why bother with them? Two reasons. First, indulgences (while relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things) are nonetheless minor tributaries to the Church's river of grace and are therefore intrinsically interesting. But second (and most important), a proper understanding of indulgences among laypeople is surprisingly helpful toward healing rifts in the Body of Christ. For though indulgences are neglected by most Catholics, nervously curious Protestants looking at Rome still find them scandalous. Indeed, the very word "indulgence" can set many a Protestant heart aquiver with the deep foreboding that, whatever papists say, they are slaves to works salvation--a suspicion only enhanced when Catholic ignorance lends credibility to the fear that Rome keeps its flock in the dark about what she really teaches.

I know these feelings quite well. And I do not disagree that Luther had a point about the "scandalous traffic in indulgences" of which the Renaissance Church was guilty. Even the Council of Trent agreed with that. But, as a convert, I came to discover the Renaissance Church was guilty, not of the theology of indulgences (which is, as we shall see, simply a theology of charismatic grace) but of simony--that is, of sinfully selling that "grace" for cold cash like a stock investment. So then, Luther was right--partly. But Rome was (in her theology if not her Renaissance practice) right too. How?
Catholic theology has an incorrigible knack for obscuring marvelous insights in confusing terminology. Thus, for instance, she speaks of "temporal punishment for sin" which sounds to Protestants as though Jesus didn't do enough and you still have to endure extra torture so you'll be fully "punished" in addition to the 80% or 90% of the punishment He took for you.

In reality, "temporal punishment" is just Catholicese for what Protestants call "chastisement." That is, it is pain unto life such as Scripture refers to when it tells us God punishes all those he loves as his children. (Hebrews 12:5-6). In short, temporal punishment is part of how God redeems our sinful actions and turns their consequences into occasions of sanctity rather than damnation. For as Paul says, "suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." (Romans 5:3-5). This is the common sense reason why repentant murderers are forgiven, yet not freed from prison. The consequences of the sin remain, but, by grace, they are turned to glory.

Very well then, as with the confusing term "temporal punishment" this Catholic knack for packaging a great idea in opaque terminology is particularly acute in the notion of indulgences. For indulgences depend on a term which Protestants find especially sinister: the "treasury of merit."
What is "merit"? Well, it isn't "extra righteousness earned by particularly nice people who pitched in to help our well-meaning but inadequate Savior's effort at redemption" (which is what many people think "merit" means). Rather "merit" is an old-fashioned term whose modern equivalent (according to theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar) is "fruitfulness."

Now we're in Protestant territory! Christians, as all Protestants know, are graced to bear fruit by the work of Christ (John 15 and all that). We are commanded by God to bear grace to the world and to each other. For as C.S. Lewis observes, God "seems to do nothing of himself which he can possibly delegate to his creatures." We are thus to bear fruit by acting as agents of grace, doing the will of God and generally "wielding our little tridents." And the power of the Holy Spirit (as all Christians know) is absolutely necessary for this fruit to exist at all, much less ripen. So, in bearing fruit, we are not talking about "works salvation." We are talking about cooperation with grace.

Now one of the manifestations of grace, as every charismatic knows, is the charism or spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are graces given via the members of the Church so that the Body is built up in love (Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4:11-16). Some of the gifts given to the Church are more famous (tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.). But nestled right in the middle of them is a gift which does not get talked about much. That gift is the gift of mercy. (Rom. 12:8)

An indulgence is a formal apostolic enactment of the gift of mercy. It is directed at members of the Catholic communion under apostolic authority through their baptism into the Church. That means that indulgences are not a form of earned justification (since that was already freely given in baptism), but are instead given to lessen the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. In short, they are an aid to growing in holiness, not a coupon for buying the forgiveness of God.

An example: I, a man with a bad temper, get baptized, calling on the Lord to be saved. What does that make me? Usually it makes me a Christian man with a bad temper since the gift of new life is grace, not magic. Baptism is not an instant cure-all. It is a gate into the transforming grace of God which, with our cooperation, can eventually heal our brains, hearts and bones.

So then, I come home from baptism full of transforming grace and, finding you did not give me the chocolate Easter bunny I wanted, break your window in a rage. I repent. I am forgiven by God and you. All my guilt is taken away by the blood of Christ the instant I repent. But I still must pay for the window and I still, by grace, have to do something about my temper. Moreover, I am strapped for cash (since I have several broken window lawsuits pending which did not magically disappear when I was baptized). But (asking for God's help) I do what I can to pay you back. You (a Christian with the gift of mercy) forgive the remainder of the debt and even give me a little something so I can afford anger management counseling and legal fees. You have, in effect, granted me a partial indulgence, relieving the temporal punishment for my already-forgiven sin and helping me toward sanctification with your charism.
So it is with the Church. For she has been graced with all charisms, graces, gifts and fruit (called by medieval theology "the treasury of merit" but referred to by St. Paul as "every spiritual blessing in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). And as the communion of graced believers, the Church has the power to authoritatively administer that blessing where she wills, just as Paul had (Eph 3:2). Indeed she is simply doing as St. Paul's told her to and using her spiritual gifts, especially the gift of mercy, in granting indulgences by her apostolic spiritual authority--the authority of the graced believer (1 Cor. 12:31).
Long ago, such mercy was visible in the lessening of severe penances required of those guilty of serious sin--penances which, but for indulgences, could last months or even years. (That's why old Catholic prayer books offer "Indulgences of 365 days attached to doing thus and so." This originally referred, not so much to "days in Purgatory" [there are, after all, no clocks there], but to earthly days of penance.) But that leaves us in a bit of a puzzle since nowadays, the relaxation of those severe penances makes the grace of indulgences largely invisible. To be sure, the Church still says an indulgence can, in some unfathomable way, help us in the process of sanctification. (And proofs of a negative are hard to come by.) But the nature of that help is very mysterious. Maybe the grace comes in the form of "extra strength" to love under difficult circumstances. Maybe some other way. I, at any rate, don't know.
"But," my Evangelical friends blurt out, "people have to earn indulgences. That's salvation by works!" No, that's pastoral common sense akin to St. Paul's dictum "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10) Similarly, if a sinner will not repent by acting in obedience to grace, he shall not receive an indulgence. For indulgences are like student grants for people who want to study sanctity, not like free diplomas for slackers who want to party. They are spiritual gifts to help us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, not carte blanche so that we needn't bother with sanctity at all. And even so, they are granted with incredible ease and frequency for the most trifling acts of obedience to grace--like saying an "Our Father" or reading Scripture for 15 short minutes. Evidently, God and His Church want us to be blessed and graced!
So in the end, this Evangelical-gone-Catholic came to realize what a great pity it is (and one long overdue to be rectified) that many honest Protestants like myself have feared indulgences as nothing but a corrupt medieval money-making scheme. They are nothing of the kind originally and, though their good name was dragged through the mud by Tetzel and his ilk, they have been nothing of the kind since Trent. It is high time lay Catholics make clear, in Protestantese, that indulgences don't make cents, they make sense!

 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor,

Could you please explain to me (the article you've posted is way too interested in explaining to Protestants and I frankly find the author's point difficult to understand) what the theology behind indulgences is, how and who can receive them, etc. I'm interested in the current teaching, not the Reformation era one. Until I saw this post I hadn't realised that you still taught such a thing and, frankly, this is one of the more worrying things I've seen posted here in terms of how it might affect any future prospects for a reconcilliation - it's not just the Protestants who had an issue with this idea. Hopefully you can explain in a way that will let me understand what the current teaching is so that I can see whether my fears are reasonable or not. I will, of course, not debate the issue here. Thanks.

James
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JamesThePersian said:
Victor,

Could you please explain to me (the article you've posted is way too interested in explaining to Protestants and I frankly find the author's point difficult to understand) what the theology behind indulgences is, how and who can receive them, etc. I'm interested in the current teaching, not the Reformation era one. Until I saw this post I hadn't realised that you still taught such a thing and, frankly, this is one of the more worrying things I've seen posted here in terms of how it might affect any future prospects for a reconcilliation - it's not just the Protestants who had an issue with this idea. Hopefully you can explain in a way that will let me understand what the current teaching is so that I can see whether my fears are reasonable or not. I will, of course, not debate the issue here. Thanks.

James

Hopefully this will be clearer. It gives you more theology then I could muster.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

Hope that helps.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:
Hopefully this will be clearer. It gives you more theology then I could muster.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

Hope that helps.

Sorry I didn't reply before, but I didn't see this till just now. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it didn't allay my fears over this issue. I just have a very hard time accepting that someone can be given some of the 'excess' merits of the saints. Maybe I'm understanding what you mean by this wrongly but from my point of view merit isn't something that can be transferred from one person to another as though it's some object. It's something we must earn for ourselves. That's all I wanted to say. I've no desire to debate the issue, but I hope this explains why the theology of indulgences concerns me.

James
 

Mystic-als

Active Member
JamesThePersian said:
It's something we must earn for ourselves.
This for me is just as worrying. Do you think you must earn forgiveness?
I hope not. Because thinking you can earn forgiveness is futile thought. If forgiveness could be earned then Moses should have earned his and walked in the promised land. But nope. Didn't happen.

i have a personal thing against a man appointed priest forgiving me on behalf of God. That makes Jesus' death a waste of time. The tearing of the veil useless.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Mystic-als, I'm sure James will be more then happy to answer you, but do realize that this is not a debate area. If you wish to learn about either of our faiths please ask what it is you wish to know. If you wish to challenge and disagree on a particular area of our faith then start a thread in the appropriate debate area.

~Victor

PS - James, I don't wish to debate it either but I do want to give you one last explanation in my own words. The crux of the matter is whether God gives more Grace to some then others. If it's all equal (in regards to Grace) then questions and problems arise. If He does indeed give more Grace to some then others then it's deemed as unfair. I'll leave it at there for now.

Also, keep in mind that those reiceing indulgences MUST be in Grace already.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:
Mystic-als, I'm sure James will be more then happy to answer you, but do realize that this is not a debate area. If you wish to learn about either of our faiths please ask what it is you wish to know. If you wish to challenge and disagree on a particular area of our faith then start a thread in the appropriate debate area.

~Victor

PS - James, I don't wish to debate it either but I do want to give you one last explanation in my own words. The crux of the matter is whether God gives more Grace to some then others. If it's all equal (in regards to Grace) then questions and problems arise. If He does indeed give more Grace to some then others then it's deemed as unfair. I'll leave it at there for now.

Also, keep in mind that those reiceing indulgences MUST be in Grace already.

I'm afraid that I still don't get what's meant. Merits to me is, more or less, good deeds (Mystic-als, it's merits that I was talking about, not forgiveness). I don't understand how a saint can have more than they need (I'm not even sure if merit can be quantified) and I certainly don't understand how the Church could transfer them to someone else if they did. Am I understanding this completely wrong? I'm genuinely trying to understand what this teaching is all about, preferrably without assuming that it's still the same as that objected to by Luther et al.

Any explanation would be appreciated.

James
 

Mystic-als

Active Member
I totally agree with you and I wasn't trying to start a debate. Just wanted to clear something up. I also don't understand how it could work. But maybe our other Catholic friends can help with this.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JamesThePersian said:
I'm afraid that I still don't get what's meant. Merits to me is, more or less, good deeds (Mystic-als, it's merits that I was talking about, not forgiveness). I don't understand how a saint can have more than they need (I'm not even sure if merit can be quantified) and I certainly don't understand how the Church could transfer them to someone else if they did. Am I understanding this completely wrong? I'm genuinely trying to understand what this teaching is all about, preferrably without assuming that it's still the same as that objected to by Luther et al.

Any explanation would be appreciated.

James

An indulgence is simply a merit won for us at Calvary. The norm is that we ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven, but temporal pain remains due to the consequences of our decicions. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline.

An Indulgence:
1. Can not be bought
2. Is for people in Grace and already forgiven
3. Is for sins already committed
4. Does not shorten your number of days in purgatory
5. Is not a transfer of merits from one person to another, but rather the merits of Christ transfered to a person.
6. Is not for Eternal Punishments for temporal (earthly life).

The best verse to show this is 2 Samuel 12:
Catholic Answers
"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’
Nathan answered David:
‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’"(2 Sam. 12:13-14).
God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12).
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:
An indulgence is simply a merit won for us at Calvary. The norm is that we ask for forgiveness, we are forgiven, but temporal pain remains due to the consequences of our decicions. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline.

An Indulgence:
1. Can not be bought
2. Is for people in Grace and already forgiven
3. Is for sins already committed
4. Does not shorten your number of days in purgatory
5. Is not a transfer of merits from one person to another, but rather the merits of Christ transfered to a person.
6. Is not for Eternal Punishments for temporal (earthly life).

The best verse to show this is 2 Samuel 12:
Catholic Answers
"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’
Nathan answered David:
‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’"(2 Sam. 12:13-14).
God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12).

OK. I still find it bizarre and incompatible with my faith, but so be it. I'm not here to argue. I couldn't see the idea being acceptable in the east if we were getting close to a reunion, but that's a problem for the future. I am curious, though, about what you mean by temporal punishments. There are two things that I need clarification on. Firstly, you're using the word punishment to mean unpleasant consequence aren't you? Not punishment as such? Secondly, I've heard and read RC apologists describe purgatorial fire as a temporal punishment in the past (and if it comes to an end it must be temporal by definition), so how come the indulgences don't affect this?

Thanks for your help in understanding, even if it hasn't lead to my accepting, your beliefs.

James

Edit: Sorry, forgot to ask. Does your first sentence mean (as it seems to) that the RCC no longer teaches that there are supererogatory merits of the saints?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JamesThePersian said:
I am curious, though, about what you mean by temporal punishments. There are two things that I need clarification on. Firstly, you're using the word punishment to mean unpleasant consequence aren't you? Not punishment as such?
Both…temporal punishment is Catholicese for saying chastisement. Unpleasant consequence may come without God’s involvement. Or God may decide to chastise you even after forgiving you. The purpose is to turn those consequences (chastisement or unpleasant consequence) into occasions of holiness rather than damnation.
JamesThePersian said:
Secondly, I've heard and read RC apologists describe purgatorial fire as a temporal punishment in the past (and if it comes to an end it must be temporal by definition), so how come the indulgences don't affect this?
It does (via prayer). One can pray for the dead for an indulgence to apply. When in a state of purification will experience unpleasant consequences. I can see though that I have erred in my phrasing of “earthly life”. I knew what I was thinking in my head and typed it wrong. My apologies. I basically meant that indulgences can only be requested by a carnal earthly person in Grace. But they can certainly apply to the dead.
JamesThePersian said:
Edit: Sorry, forgot to ask. Does your first sentence mean (as it seems to) that the RCC no longer teaches that there are supererogatory merits of the saints?
What does this mean to you? Can you explain please.

~Victor
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:


What does this mean to you? Can you explain please.

To the best of my understanding, supererogatory merits of the saints were, at the time of Luther, considered to be excess merits that the saints had earned but didn't actually require and which could be passed on to another person by the Church in an indulgence. In other words, the reason I asked the questionwas because you said that the merits obtained via an indulgence all came from Christ whereas what I've been taught and read about Reformation era Roman Catholicism does not agree with this. Of course, my sources may be wrong so perhaps you could point out a good source?

This is not from a Roman Catholic source, but explains precisely what I was taught about supererogation:

A "supererogatory" work, according to traditional moral philosophy, is a morally good action which exceeds what is merely morally required. This, of course, is based upon a distinction within God's law between what is mandatory for salvation and what is simply advisory (the "commandments" of the Gospel as opposed to the "counsels" of the Gospel).

The idea of a heavenly "treasury" of merits of the Saints flows from this idea. The Saints in heaven have not only fulfilled the minimum for salvation (they have observed the "commandments"), but have earned "extra" merits (by observing also the "counsels") which can, somehow, be applied before God to sinners on earth having more trouble fulfilling the minimum.

I look forward to hearing back from you. If such a 'treasury' of excess merits in heaven is still a part of Roman Catholic teaching, though, I'd have to say that I find this idea far more troubling than some of the other differences between us. There is nothing equivalent in Orthodoxy.

James
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Works of supererogation follows from the RC belief that our works become one with God’s works and are elevated through grace. An example would be1 Corinthians 7 Paul counsels the Corinthians that he who marries does well, but he who does not marry does better (7:38). Paul thus indicates that Christians have the freedom to marry but that it is possible for them to do even better than this by embracing a celibate life for the cause of Christ would be a case of supererogation.

Saint Leo speaks of St. Peter by saying,
By whose merits and prayers we believe that we shall be aided, so that we may please our merciful God in our fasting and prayer.

From Ante-Nicene Fathers:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-113.htm#TopOfPage
We believe, indeed, that the merits of martyrs and the works of the righteous are of great avail with the Judge….

I also found this link that can hopefully be helpful for Orthodox understanding.
The Rambler:
To speak in terms of "merit" is not in itself problematic. The problem is really one of context, and the unfortunate association of this type of language with later ideas of "superogatory works" and worse yet, some "treasury" of said works from which the Pope can supposedly "draw" and apply to Christians who meet the conditions he defines. All of that it anathema to Orthodox soteriology.

A clear example of an "Orthodox understanding" of merit, would be the one which we get from the opening chapters of the Apocalypse of St.John. Though obviously highly figurative, it is definately instructive on this topic. In the Apocalypse we read about the heavenly elders lamenting that "none if worthy" to open "the book". It is only Christ (the Lamb Who is slaughtered yet lives) Who is worthy to receive the book, and open it.

It can rightly be said that Christ "merits our salvation", in the sense that He as a true man is the only one in all of creation worthy to administer it (hence, being the heavenly "High Priest" as well as Lord.)

Obviously all of this is wrapped up in the whole subject of there being an economy of salvation in the first place. The language of "sacrificial offering" and "merit" occurs within this Divinely ordained economy. It's within this same economy of grace that the "merits of the saints" fit in. This is, IMHO one of the high points of St.Augustine's teaching - namely, what he has to say about the economy of grace in relation to the intercession of the Saints. While there is obviously nothing stopping God from communicating His favour to us "directly", there is an even greater good in "mediating" it in various ways, including via the intercession of His dearest friends.


http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/03/merits-of-saints.html

Please let me know if this clarifies things a bit more.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:
Works of supererogation follows from the RC belief that our works become one with God’s works and are elevated through grace. An example would be1 Corinthians 7 Paul counsels the Corinthians that he who marries does well, but he who does not marry does better (7:38). Paul thus indicates that Christians have the freedom to marry but that it is possible for them to do even better than this by embracing a celibate life for the cause of Christ would be a case of supererogation.

Saint Leo speaks of St. Peter by saying,
By whose merits and prayers we believe that we shall be aided, so that we may please our merciful God in our fasting and prayer.

From Ante-Nicene Fathers:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-113.htm#TopOfPage
We believe, indeed, that the merits of martyrs and the works of the righteous are of great avail with the Judge….

I also found this link that can hopefully be helpful for Orthodox understanding.
The Rambler:
To speak in terms of "merit" is not in itself problematic. The problem is really one of context, and the unfortunate association of this type of language with later ideas of "superogatory works" and worse yet, some "treasury" of said works from which the Pope can supposedly "draw" and apply to Christians who meet the conditions he defines. All of that it anathema to Orthodox soteriology.

A clear example of an "Orthodox understanding" of merit, would be the one which we get from the opening chapters of the Apocalypse of St.John. Though obviously highly figurative, it is definately instructive on this topic. In the Apocalypse we read about the heavenly elders lamenting that "none if worthy" to open "the book". It is only Christ (the Lamb Who is slaughtered yet lives) Who is worthy to receive the book, and open it.

It can rightly be said that Christ "merits our salvation", in the sense that He as a true man is the only one in all of creation worthy to administer it (hence, being the heavenly "High Priest" as well as Lord.)

Obviously all of this is wrapped up in the whole subject of there being an economy of salvation in the first place. The language of "sacrificial offering" and "merit" occurs within this Divinely ordained economy. It's within this same economy of grace that the "merits of the saints" fit in. This is, IMHO one of the high points of St.Augustine's teaching - namely, what he has to say about the economy of grace in relation to the intercession of the Saints. While there is obviously nothing stopping God from communicating His favour to us "directly", there is an even greater good in "mediating" it in various ways, including via the intercession of His dearest friends.


http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/03/merits-of-saints.html

Please let me know if this clarifies things a bit more.

I wasn't bothered by the term merits at all but only by the idea of supererogation. You've made my position more clear (by posting the above quote which pretty much sums it up) but you haven't made the RC position any clearer at all.

I cannot understand the idea of supererogation (how can you do more than required when salvation is an ongoing and unending process of becoming perfect through God's grace), I cannot understand the idea of a treasury of excess merits in heaven and I cannot understand how on earth, even if such a thing existed, the Church could possibly transfer some to another person, almost as though they're acting like spiritual bankers. I know we're told to build up treasure in heaven, but that just seems to be going way beyond anything that I can find in Scripture or our common Holy Tradition. If you can provide explanations of the three things above (how they can make sense to an RC, despite seeming completely nonsensical to the Orthodox) then I'd appreciate it.

I'm sorry. I was hoping that I'd find that this doctrine was one of those things where we use different language but mean the same, but I don't think it is. It appears to be a novel doctrine of Roman Catholicism and one which I just don't se as Catholic at all (in the Vincentian sense). That said, I'm very tempted to bow out now because this is not in a debate forum and I'm starting to get sorely tempted to argue against it rather than just ask for explanation. I won't debate it, but if I cease posting here you'll understand why.

James
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Figured I'd give you some time to calm down. Maybe in a latter time we can look into this further. But in hopes of sparking further interest there is another way of looking at superogation. It is not so much that we "earn" more merit than we need, but that God has provided infinite merits in Christ and we in the Church are enabled to be a means of grace for others by which we might share this superabundance. We are a body and the organs of a body support each other. By praying and working together we are stronger than we are by our selves.

That's all I can muster for this topic.

Peace be with you

~Victor
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Victor said:
Figured I'd give you some time to calm down. Maybe in a latter time we can look into this further. But in hopes of sparking further interest there is another way of looking at superogation. It is not so much that we "earn" more merit than we need, but that God has provided infinite merits in Christ and we in the Church are enabled to be a means of grace for others by which we might share this superabundance. We are a body and the organs of a body support each other. By praying and working together we are stronger than we are by our selves.

That's all I can muster for this topic.

Peace be with you

~Victor

This I can agree with (apart from the calm down comment - I was perfectly calm in the first place) but I simply don't see any reason for the idea of supererogation in anything you have said. If that is, indeed, all that is meant by the RCC then you have no argument from me, it just doesn't seem as though that can possibly be all there is to it and I can't see any way to get from what you've written to the practice of indulgences. Would you care to explain, or should we call it a day with regards to this discussion?

James
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JamesThePersian said:
This I can agree with (apart from the calm down comment - I was perfectly calm in the first place) but I simply don't see any reason for the idea of supererogation in anything you have said. If that is, indeed, all that is meant by the RCC then you have no argument from me, it just doesn't seem as though that can possibly be all there is to it and I can't see any way to get from what you've written to the practice of indulgences. Would you care to explain, or should we call it a day with regards to this discussion?

James

Sorry about that, I thought you were bothered in your previous post. Since you said you were tempted to debate kinda told me that you were. But I could have more then likely looked too much into that. :eek:

I'm gonna call it a day for now.

~Victor
 
Top