In Roman Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.[1] Indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Reformation.
Roman Catholic Theology
[edit] Sin
Personal sins, that is specific sins committed by a person instead of the inherited original sin or evil resultant of personal sin, are either mortal or venial.
* Mortal sins destroy charity in the heart of man by a grave (serious) violation of God's law. It turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. It deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: The act must be of grave (serious) matter, you must have full knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and you must deliberately consent to committing the act (Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Venial sins are less serious sins. They allow charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it (CCC).
Punishments for sin can be temporal and eternal. Temporal punishments are temporary punishments - those that affect us in this life or in Purgatory. The more temporal punishments you incur, the more punishment/suffering you have to endure on earth or in Purgatory. Eternal punishment is everlasting. Basically, if you are suffering eternal punishment, you are in hell. All sins entail some sort of temporal punishment. Mortal sins also carry an eternal punishment. Even though you may be forgiven of a sin (through the sacrament of Reconciliation), and relieved of any eternal punishment (hell), temporal punishments may still remain.
An Indulgence is granted for the remission of the remaining temporal punishments due to sins that have already been forgiven.
[edit] Penance
Plenary (full) Indulgences are gained after the individual earning the indulgence completes the required tasks, which always includes the reception of the sacrament of Penance. Because the sacrament of reconciliation removes the culpable element of sin, the penitent is restored by reconciliation to the state of grace. However, while the individual’s guilt and any eternal punishment is removed by reconciliation, temporal punishments may still remain. God has mercy upon sinners who repent their sins, but like some parents, His justice still requires that the sinner be punished for the wrongdoing. In addition, even though the separation caused by sin is removed the repercussions for the sin have not been removed and still require punishment. E.g. if one steals a loaf of bread, the baker still is missing and suffers the loss of the bread even if the thief makes amends. This punishment is called "temporal punishment", both because it is a punishment of time, as opposed to eternal punishment, and because it relates to the temporary world (Earth or Purgatory), rather than to the “final destination” (Heaven or Hell).
[edit] Temporal Punishment in Purgatory
Church teachings explain that individuals who experience trials and tribulations in this world by God's grace may have them serve as their temporal punishment for forgiven sins (Catechism 1473); other individuals die without having served the full temporal punishment for their sins. These individuals do not have guilt for sin, because it has been forgiven either through reconciliation or perfect contrition before death, and therefore they will attain Heaven. However, they are not yet ready to enter Heaven, as their punishment has yet to be served. Therefore, these individuals “enter” Purgatory, and the punishment they owe is "purged." The Church teaches that the souls in Purgatory desire to be there, because they have realized that they are not yet ready to attain Heaven. Purgatory may be illustrated as a place of preparation for the deceased; they know they will enter Heaven, and Purgatory is a place in which the deceased are cleansed for God.
[edit] The Indulgence
In Catholic theology, the salvation made possible by Jesus allows the faithful sinner eventual admittance to Heaven. Baptism forgives all of the baptized person's existing sins; any sin committed after baptism incurs both guilt and a penalty that must be addressed. These are the sins addressed in reconciliation. After reconciliation, the temporal punishment for sin remains. This punishment may be remitted in Purgatory, or by indulgence. The granting of an indulgence is the spiritual reassignment, as it were, of existing merit to an individual requiring that merit.
Indulgences occur when the Church, acting by virtue of its authority, applies existing merit from the Church’s treasury to an individual. The individual gains the indulgence by participating in certain activities, most often the recitation of prayers. By decree of Pope Pius V in 1567, following the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to attach the receipt of an indulgence to any financial act, including the giving of alms. In addition, the only punishment remitted by an indulgence is existing punishment, that is, for sins already committed. Indulgences do not remit punishment for future sins, as those sins have yet to be committed. Thus, indulgences are not a “license to sin” or a “get-out-of-Hell-free” card; they are a means for the sinner to “pay” the “wages” of sin.
Indulgences are "plenary" or "partial”:
* "plenary" indulgences remit all of the existing temporal punishment due for the individual’s sins. An individual can only earn one plenary indulgence per day.
* "partial" indulgences remit only a part of the existing punishment.
Before the Second Vatican Council, partial indulgences were stated as a term of days, weeks, months, or years. This has resulted in Catholics and non-Catholics alike believing that indulgences remit a specific period of time equal to the length of the soul's stay in Purgatory. This was not true, rather the stated length of time actually indicated that the indulgence was equal to the amount of remission the individual would have earned by performing a canonical penance for that period of time. For example, the amount of punishment remitted by a “forty day” indulgence would be equal to the amount of punishment remitted by the individual performing forty days of penance.
The original reasoning for the "days" notation was, in the early days of the Church, a person's only means of returning to the state of grace was performing penances equal to the actions he had committed. Because a person may not receive Eucharist while not in a state of grace, he must perform these penances if he wished to be Catholic. However, because some people had been professional thieves, prostitutes, or some other sinful individual, he would have to undergo hundreds of years of penance to get remission for his sins. To alleviate this, the Church instituted certain actions or prayers which would cleanse him for the amount of time noted.
In addition to remitting punishment for the individual's own existing sins, an individual may perform the actions necessary to gain an indulgence with the intention of gaining the indulgence for a specific individual in Purgatory. In doing so, the individual both gains the indulgence for the soul in Purgatory, and performs a spiritual act of mercy.
To gain an indulgence the individual must be “in communion” with the Church, and have the intention of performing the work for which the indulgence is granted. To be “in communion,” the individual must be a baptized Catholic without any un-reconciled mortal sins (if there are any un-reconciled mortal sins, the individual has cut himself/herself off from God and cannot receive the indulgence) and must not be dissenting from the Church’s teaching. The individual must also intend to receive the indulgence.
Generally, a plenary indulgence requires the following conditions in order to be valid (in addition to the acts performed to earn the indulgence).
* reconciliation, which is required for all indulgences
* receiving the Eucharist
* All attachment to sin must be absent.
* pray for the intentions of the Holy Father. An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the intentions of the Pontiff is sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.
It is recommended that the Communion be received at Mass on the same day that the indulgence is earned. Reconciliation may be within a prudent period before or after the act (typically, one week, though during the Great Jubilee, the Vatican specifically allowed confession within three weeks of the act). Several indulgences may be earned under the same confession (reconciliation). If any of these additional conditions is missing, the plenary indulgence will instead be partial.
Penitential redemptions were a milder form of indulgence that cut down the time of penance.[2]
[edit] Indulgenced Acts
The following acts are examples of those which result in the award of an indulgence:
* An act of spiritual communion, expressed in any devout formula whatsoever, is endowed with a partial indulgence.
* A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who devoutly spend time in mental prayer.
* A plenary indulgence is granted when the rosary is recited in a church or oratory or when it is recited in a family, a religious community, or a pious association. A partial indulgence is granted for its recitation in all other circumstances.
* A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].
* A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly sign themselves with the cross while saying the customary formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
* A partial indulgence is granted for the recitation of the Angelus.
* A partial indulgence is granted to Christian faithful who on day of the liturgical feast of any saint recite in that Saint's honor and prayer taken from the Missal or other prayer approved by legimate authority.
[edit] Controversy
The doctrine of indulgences has historically been a controversial teaching in Western Christianity soteriology[citation needed]. The abuse of this doctrine, in part led to the start of the Protestant Reformation.
The ability to grant full or partial pardons from the punishment of sins has been used by members of the Western Church's hierarchy throughout history. These indulgences were related to the removal of the temporal punishment of forgiven sinners.
In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation.
Luther had already preached against indulgences, but he wrote the 95 Theses partly in reaction to the promotion of indulgences by Johann Tetzel, papal commissioner for indulgences in Germany, to raise funds for the renovation of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".[3] The 95 Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the pope's right to grant pardons on God's behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God's power alone.[4]
While Luther did not deny the pope’s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Church, he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error.[5] From this controversy the Protestant Reformation was launched.
In 1294, Pope Celestine V issued a bull of pardon in L'Aquila, Italy, offering plenary indulgence to everybody sincerely contrite and confessed entering the basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio. The only other Saint Door outside Vatican is opened annually by a Cardinal between the evening of August 28 and the day after.
An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."
An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."
The indulgence, shown to the right, granted by Johann Tetzel in 1517 reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days." This description is confusing, particularly in the wording ("I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds;") as authentic indulgences do not offer forgiveness or absolution, rather, they remit the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. Further, under the current practice, lengths of time are not specified on indulgences.
[edit] Other traditions
An 18th century indulgence granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and sold by Greek monks in Wallachia
An 18th century indulgence granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and sold by Greek monks in Wallachia
Because the underlying doctrine of salvation differs from the Latin Catholic model, indulgences do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholicism, although the former had, in some places, a similar practice of Absolution Certificates until the twentieth century, known as aphesis or συγχωροχαρτια - synchorochartia; at the beginning of the 18th century Dositheos Notaras (1641-1707), Patriarch of Jerusalem, writes about Indulgences as something known to everyone in the ancient tradition: "This practice was confirmed by ancient Tradition that was known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs would grant certificates (συγχωροχαρτιόν - synchorochartion) for the remission of sins to the faithful people.".
Those traditions which reject a Latin Catholic concept of Purgatory (or alternatively, a “condition of waiting”) also reject indulgences, as there is no need for remission of temporal punishment where no temporal punishment exists.
The practice of the clergy accepting money for the expiation of the sins of the dead appears in the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees (ca. 100 BC). This practice is seen nowhere else in the Roman Catholic Bible. The author praises the practice of donating money to the temple as a way of improving the standing of dead sinners on Judgment Day. These "indulgences" are associated with the Pharisees. The Sadducees did not believe in Judgment Day and the Essenes were not part of the Temple power structure.
As Protestantism was, for a large part, inspired by the practice, indulgences do not exist in their traditions.
I wanna be sin neutral!
MisterOpus1
Shakka,
I think there's something to be said about your argument against carbon credits, and I must admit that they don't personally have a huge appeal to me in terms of their validity to true environmental conservation.
The problem I feel remains, however, in that while I am slowly starting to understand your argument against these carbon credits, what would you suggest would be a lifestyle to which would be more congruent to the conservation life Gore is advocating? Again although you do not DIRECTLY imply that Gore should be living in the forest as a hippie (with me), I would contend that you indirectly imply such a life by posting up your previous article about the pope trading up sins.
IOW, what other lifestyle would be appropriate in your eyes for Gore who he and his wife run their own business and staff out of their house? I've thought about this for a little while today, and I don't want to run into a false dichotomy fallacy by stating his ONLY other alternative to what you are criticizing is living has a forest hippie. But what other choice are you creating for him that in your eyes would be considered "appropriate" to the message he is giving on conservation? To run the business that he runs along with his wife and to perform his discussions and lectures that he does to the public in what he believes, what alternative means can you think of that would work for him rather than becoming the smelly forest hippie?
And finally, I had to chuckle at this exchange between Boxer and Inhofe:
quote:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has said Al Gore is “full of crap” and compared people who believe in global warming to “the Third Reich.” During today’s Senate hearing, Inhofe used a considerable amount of time to attack Gore’s use of carbon offsets and try to convince him to sign a sham “energy ethics pledge.” (Find the real facts on Gore’s energy usage HERE and HERE.)
Inhofe asked Gore for his reaction, but then quickly cut him off saying Gore had taken up too much time. When Gore tried to go on, Inhofe repeatedly interrupted, adding, “I don’t want to be rude, but from now on, I’m going to ask you to respond…in writing.” Inhofe said Gore could respond verbally only if it was a “very brief response.”
Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finally intervened. “Would you agree to let the Vice President answer your questions?” Inhofe said Gore could respond when he was done talking, but Boxer wouldn’t have it: “No, that isn’t the rule. You’re not making the rules. You used to when you did this. Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.” The hearing audience applauded loudly. Watch it:
Inhofe was being a total ass. Asking a question, then interrupting Gore and not allowing him to answer it, and then telling him that he wants his answer in writing only? Jesus, he deserved to get bitchslapped by a woman for that.
Krypton
The entire thing was BS.
I want to see a open-circle debate between the scientist saying humans caused global warming, and the scientist saying global is just a natural cycle.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Shakka,
I think there's something to be said about your argument against carbon credits, and I must admit that they don't personally have a huge appeal to me in terms of their validity to true environmental conservation.
The problem I feel remains, however, in that while I am slowly starting to understand your argument against these carbon credits, what would you suggest would be a lifestyle to which would be more congruent to the conservation life Gore is advocating? Again although you do not DIRECTLY imply that Gore should be living in the forest as a hippie (with me), I would contend that you indirectly imply such a life by posting up your previous article about the pope trading up sins.
IOW, what other lifestyle would be appropriate in your eyes for Gore who he and his wife run their own business and staff out of their house? I've thought about this for a little while today, and I don't want to run into a false dichotomy fallacy by stating his ONLY other alternative to what you are criticizing is living has a forest hippie. But what other choice are you creating for him that in your eyes would be considered "appropriate" to the message he is giving on conservation? To run the business that he runs along with his wife and to perform his discussions and lectures that he does to the public in what he believes, what alternative means can you think of that would work for him rather than becoming the smelly forest hippie?
Simply not be so ostentacious with his lifestyle. If I had that kind of money, I'm sure I'd want to expand and have a bigger house, nicer things, etc., but when Gore preaches on about how this is a major crisis and that we have almost no time to stave off a global catastrophe, while still using so far more than most people consider reasonable, I just find him a little bit disingenouous. I mean I watch an interview like this and come away thinking maybe we all should live more like crazy granola folk, but then I see how Gore is actually living and it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It makes it look like the problem is not nearly as serious as he would have us believe while he is profiting from his position all the way. Forgive my ire, but without pushing a "living in trees" mantra, I think it is more than reasonable to expect him to downsize to a more modest level. There is no need for a mansion or a private jet. I have maintained that there is a huge middle ground between where he currently is and hippieland. I'd like to see his consumption levels more inline with the general populace before I could see myself jumping on the bandwagon. His actions just leave the question: Either Gore really is completely full of or this whole global warming thing just isn't nearly as serious as he wants us to believe.
And if the problem is not that serious, maybe this is the solution: Everyone who thinks it's a crisis can continue making their special efforts to cut back, buy offsets, whatever. Those who think the problem is being overhyped can continue living how they see fit. Hopefully if the issue really is that serious, the efforts of one side will be enough to compensate and everyone will be fine.;) Of course the problem with that is that nobody likes to make sacrifices because they think it's unfair that John Q gets to keep driving his Hummer while they have to drive a Prius. Unless of course they buy some carbon credits. In my eyes, Gore is hyping this mentality, which I think I've showed doesn't necessarily help with the big picture issue at all (despite how good or bad the intent may be).
I can almost picture a bad commercial where some dude takes his gas guzzling SUV to an Earth Day parade and gets funny looks from the crowd when he arrives. "It's OK dudes, I've got a pocket full of carbon credits."
It's not that I'm against conservation and looking out for our environment--I absolutely am. I just disagree with the messenger and don't think he's setting the right example--hence me calling him a hypocrite throughout this thread. I have replaced all the bulbs (almost all) in my house with flourescents. I don't think they save a ton of energy, but I did it anyway. They definitely mess with my vision. I pay for the privilege of recycling, even though it would be easier to not pay for it. I definitely notice lower trash volume going to the landfill. I try to keep my house almost uncomfortable climate-wise (i.e. borderline hot in the summer and almost cold in the winter) though that's more because I'm a cheap bastard that hates unnecessarily expensive power bills. I keep some lights on a timer to minimize waste. We don't drive SUVs (though there are times when I definitely need the cargo space--like right now since we're buying all sorts of stuff for the baby's room). But again, I think it's more important to focus on conservation over "offsets", particularly in the context that this is a "global crisis". I think I've rambled enough.
quote:
And finally, I had to chuckle at this exchange between Boxer and Inhofe:
Inhofe was being a total ass. Asking a question, then interrupting Gore and not allowing him to answer it, and then telling him that he wants his answer in writing only? Jesus, he deserved to get bitchslapped by a woman for that.
That was pretty funny, though the first part of what Inhofe was asking essentially spoke to the point I've been making. He clearly got pretty flustered with Gore not directly answering the question (which was not necessarily the most direct question as it was grandstanding).
There is only so much that Gore can attribute to the higher costs of using "Green" energy from his utility (which is not necessarily far off from credits in some instances, though I'm glad to hear that some of it is from wind energy). I recently investigated making such a switch with my power company and I wasn't completely convinced that it makes a big difference or just pads the profits of my power provider. In any event, the cost does not look so onerous that it would cause my monthly bill to go from $100 to $1000.
quote:
Green Energy is a Natural Choice
Now it's easier than ever to support environmentally friendly energy generation from sources like the sun, wind, water, and biomass. Just sign up for Georgia Power's Green Energy® program and help bring more renewable power to Georgia.
Make a difference with Green Energy
By participating in Georgia Power's Green Energy program, you continue to get the reliable energy you need while doing something positive about the environment. Your Green Energy choice will:
* Potentially reduce the environmental impact of energy production
* Conserve our natural resources
* Support domestic energy self-reliance
Green Energy is regulated by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
How it works
* Green Energy is available to residential customers in 100-kilowatt-hour blocks for a 12-month period (about 10 percent of an average monthly residential electricity bill).
* Each block adds $4.50 (plus tax) to your monthly electricity bill.
* Commercial and industrial customers can also participate with a minimum block purchase based on the amount of energy used as defined in the Green Energy Tariff.
Each block purchased brings more Green Energy into our state. As demand for renewable energy increases, the higher expense of green energy generation may be offset by improved technology and production efficiency. Customers who participate in the program cannot be guaranteed that they will receive the actual kilowatts produced by a green energy generation method, but you can rest assured the green energy you are supporting is being produced and delivered to Georgia Power customers.
Anyway, I feel like I've made my point at this point. Sorry to have been so longwinded.
Fir3start3r
Nice post Shakka.
Someone should probably highlight the fact to Gore that you CAN live the granola life he preaches :haha:
I love the quote I read the other day where it said that Nature doesn't care about Carbon Credits.
Krypton
If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk?
Or don't expect the rest of us to walk what he talks but what he won't walk.
Magnetonium
I am personally convinced that the only issue at hand here is pollution and destruction of environment. The destruction of forests (200,000 acres PER DAY) alone can explain the increasing carbon dioxide levels, because the temperature has not risen on par. Thats what Al Gore didnt say in the movie. When is the environmental destruction going to be an issue? Global warming is the RESULT of the destruction, as seen in millions of trees cut and lots of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
Existo22
You smug-f!!k illiterate conservative morons always have to attack the person making the argument rather than address the the substance of the argument.
In your stupid little head the fact that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% above pre-industrial levels since 1750 is somehow argued by stating that ''Al Gore has a big house and flies around in an airplane''
Argument ad hominem tu quoque at its finest.
You f!cking morons think that he's supposed to live in a f!cking cave and use candles for light just because he is talking about global warming!
He is spending millions of dollars representing the planet on an uphill battle against short sighted greedy f!!ks with too much money!
The fact is that this is a planetary crisis and some rich f!!ck pigs would rather lie and see the planet destroyed than sacrifice some money cleaning the fuel that is causing a crisis which will be devastating for future generations. You don't care. You are too short-sided. You are too greedy.
It's all about the rich f!!ks you look up to having more money now.
Republican party: the party of the stupid & the party of the greedy!
Magnetonium
Hey, Existo22, wiseass, tell me then what Al Gore has achieved for the environment as a vice-president for Clinton during the many years in the 1990s. How come Al Gore failed to deliver on his global warming pledges while in office? How come he accepts funds from oil companies, owns stocks in them, has a big bad polutting zinc mine on his property, not even mentioning the bad energy use? And how about talking how FAIR he was in his movie ... for example he was talking about how CO2 has increased dramatically, yet the temperatures today are still cooler than 11,000 years ago when the ice age was ending. How come the greenhouse gas levels 11,000 years ago were so low yet the temperature slightly higher? Are we pumping CO2 in Mars atmosphere and causing their global warming as well (also: Jupiter's, Pluto's)? There are many holes in Al Gore's story. Oh, and by the way, Al Gore lied when he said that ZERO scientists disagree with his view on global warming.
EDIT: I am not a conservative, I hate neo-cons, and I am an environmentalist, green party supporter. But I dont support bullcrap that doesnt help the environment. Al Gore hardly mentioned anything on environmental destruction in his movie and how it releases massive levels of CO2. That, among other things, only shows that Al Gore has an agenda, to make money off this greenhouse craze by taxing us higher and making profits selling carbon credits and making himself look good while in reality nothing positive is happening and we are going in the wrong direction. 200,000 acres of forests are still getting cut down around the world every 24 hours.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Existo22
You smug-f uck illiterate conservative morons always have to attack the person making the argument rather than address the the substance of the argument.
In your stupid little head the fact that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% above pre-industrial levels since 1750 is somehow argued by stating that ''Al Gore has a big house and flies around in an airplane''
Argument ad hominem tu quoque at its finest.
You f ucking morons think that he's supposed to live in a f ucking cave and use candles for light just because he is talking about global warming!
He is spending millions of dollars representing the planet on an uphill battle against short sighted greedy f ucks with too much money!
The fact is that this is a planetary crisis and some rich f uck pigs would rather lie and see the planet destroyed than sacrifice some money cleaning the fuel that is causing a crisis which will be devastating for future generations. You don't care. You are too short-sided. You are too greedy.
It's all about the rich f ucks you look up to having more money now.
Republican party: the party of the stupid & the party of the greedy!
Edit from the moderator: No NSFW pics, please. If you don't know what an appropriate picture would be, refrain from posting pictures altogether. Otherwise, I can help you out in the future ;)
