For Roman Catholics, a Door to Absolution Is Reopened

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago ”” the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife ”” and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

The fact that many Catholics under 50 have never sought one, and never heard of indulgences except in high school European history (Martin Luther denounced the selling of them in 1517 while igniting the Protestant Reformation), simply makes their reintroduction more urgent among church leaders bent on restoring fading traditions of penance in what they see as a self-satisfied world.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Religion News & Commentary, Eschatology, Ethics / Moral Theology, Other Churches, Pastoral Theology, Roman Catholic, Theology

15 comments on “For Roman Catholics, a Door to Absolution Is Reopened

  1. Chris Molter says:

    Um. They never went away. Man, the state of lay education is pitiable..

  2. Stefano says:

    We read in Ephesians 2

    8 Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God;

    9 not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit.

    (This is from a RC translation) Now… tell me how indulgences figure in………..?

    No, seriously.

  3. physician without health says:

    This is another symptom of what I brought up on SF with the RC church granting itself authority to develop doctrines which are not Scriptural. While I understand the exodus from TEC, I do not understand why so many are flocking to the RC church as opposed to say PCA or LCMS.

  4. JamesTheLesser says:

    Here ya go Stefano…

    John 20: 19-21
    ” On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
    Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

    The apostles were given the power of Christ (the power given to him by the Father, BTW) to forgive sins. Indulgences are an application of that power and authority.

  5. Branford says:

    physician without health – I am one who has left TEC and is in the process of joining the RC Church. I did not seriously consider any other Protestant denominations because, at best, they are just five or ten years behind TEC. Many are connected in some way with abortion support and are undergoing intense pressure to ignoring pastors in non-married sexual relationships. Why move from one to another? Yes, the RC has practices that are not outlined in Scripture. These practices, of course, according to the RC church have a biblical foundation and come out of the Tradition of the Church. Do I agree with all of them? Maybe not. Do I think I know more than 2,000 years of Catholic thought and teaching? I don’t think so. Am I a better thinker than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.? Definitely not. Am I called to think through these things in my RCIA class? Absolutely. For me, the Catholic Church has not asked me to deny my doubts, but to explore them in the context of church teaching. I am not joining the RC Church out of anger at TEC. I am joining the RC Church because, once I became aware of the heresy of TEC and its connections, I began studying other denominations and realized that, for me, the Catholic Church does fulfill her claim of the fullest expression of Christ’s presence in this world. I hope this helps you understand why some former TECers are moving to Rome.

  6. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Marvellous – where can I buy one?

  7. Charles says:

    #6 – you can’t. It has been unlawful to sell indulgences since 1567 (as stated in the article). Did you read the article?

  8. stevejax says:

    All I can say is …Wow !! I thought we were redeemed through Jesus and not through the instruments of man made institutions.
    I wholeheartedly agree with physician in #3.
    JamesTheLesser: there is a huge chasm between the verse you quoted and the conclusion of grant indulgences.
    But I guess if man can invent purgatory, he can surely invent ways to make purgatory more pleasant.

  9. Paula Loughlin says:

    Here is a link to the Catechism on the Sacrament of Confession. Indulgences are explained at 1471. Note it is connected to a belief in the doctrine of Purgatory so on that basis alone is unacceptable to non Catholics. But if you are going to scorn Catholic doctrine please scorn what it actually says. Not what you think it says.

    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm

  10. Drew Na says:

    Sins are forgiven freely by Christ–in Penance, Catholics believe.

    But justice requires that we repair the harm we cause. Sins have social consequences, and so we are required to make some attempt at repairing those consequences. That is “temporal punishment” caused by sin.

    Indulgences are a gift by which that punishment is commuted, by offering to the Father the superabundance of Christ’s work to eliminate the effects of sin, and of all the efforts the saints have made to conform themselves with Christ and in Christ. Obviously it’s different from forgiveness of sins. Although the gift of indulgences accompanies some sort of prayerful act of communion with God, it remains a gift.

  11. Words Matter says:

    When I was a kid and spent summers on my grandparent’s farm, I often spent the day in the fields with my grandfather. Washing up when I came in never seemed a punishment – the cold water felt good and the clean feeling was wonderful. What a shame it would be to think we should barge into heaven carrying with us the grime of this world, demanding our legal rights – I BELIEVE IN CHRIST AS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR! YOU HAVE TO LET ME IN! We would make a mess of heaven, just as we have made a mess of this world.

    I know we seldom shout at God as blatantly as that, but, really, should we look at salvation as a legal transaction? A forensic quid pro quo? What is “salvation”, if not deliverance from sin and the power of sin so that we can stand sinless with the sinless Lord Jesus in the presence of the Father? That means actual deliverance proceeding from an imputed deliverance. If you are without sin, walking constantly in the fruit of the Spirit, praying constantly, never impatient, never cross, always at the service of your brothers and sisters, then fear not: there will be no purgatory for you. For the rest of us, a good washing up is a great mercy.

  12. Words Matter says:

    Oh, I meant to say that the headline is wrong: indulgences (and purgatory) are not “doors to absolution”. Quite the opposite. Indulgences remit the temporal consequences of sins which have been absolved. Purgatory is for the redeemed – the mudroom of heaven, if you will.

  13. Stefano says:

    Jesus was given power by the Father ? What a surprise!

    Indulgences may not be ‘Salvation by Works’ but seem very duck-like, hence the need for a lot of explanation….really.

    Dittoes to the ‘Dead Doc’ the Florida guy.

  14. libraryjim says:

    Yes, Stefano, they do need explanation. Thus, it is very incorrect of so many people to condemn the teaching without understanding the theology behind it. As I’m sure you agree. 😉

    For those who do want a fuller explanation of the concept, please visit the link Paula provided above.

  15. Chris Molter says:

    [blockquote]hence the need for a lot of explanation….really. [/blockquote]
    I couldn’t agree more. Much like homousious vs homoiousios. Or justification vs sanctification.