Indulgences - are they forgiven?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Are those who were forgiven, in exchange for money, really forgiven?

[desertknight]

An 'indulgence' is not the forgiveness of sin, so the premise of your question is erroneous.  An indulgence has nothing to do with absolution granted within the Sacrament of Penance, nor is it a sacramental act in any way but getting to your point, can sacramental actions from a priest who commits them in exchange for money be valid?  Yes, providing that the priest is validly facilitated, (authorised), within a diocese and the sacramental act he is performing is done correctly.  Sacramental grace does not in any way flow from the priest or Bishop and is not dependent on his personal state of grace, although motives can certainly effect that validity of sacraments as well as their legality or licitness.  In the case you are trying to get at, on the priest's part it would effect the licitness of the sacrament, but not necessarily the validity.  Grace is only from Christ Himself and flows by the power of the Holy Spirit.  A priest is only there to facilitate that Grace through his authority granted by the Church.

Let me give you an example to make it perfectly clear.  A young Catholic couple wish to marry and the priest who is to facilitate this is behind to his bookey.  He is addicted to the ponies and he is bad at picking the winners.  He tells the couple, "I can't marry you unless you pay me 5 'large'.  They being young and ignorant, come up with the $5,000 and are married.  The priest is busted by the cops in the act of paying off the bookey and it is all over town.  Is the couple's marriage valid?  As long as they were in no way aware of the illicit nature of the priest's actions and were complicit in them, then yes, of course it is still valid!   They have no need to go through another marriage ceremony.  The priest is a valid priest and although his actions are highly illicit, the authority he still had at the time of the wedding to officiate the marriage is valid.  The local vice squad would concur for the state.  

[Charles Sloan]

 

[Stucky]

An 'indulgence' is not the forgiveness of sin, so the premise of your question is erroneous.  An indulgence has nothing to do with absolution granted within the Sacrament of Penance, nor is it a sacramental act in any way but getting to your point, can sacramental actions from a priest who commits them in exchange for money be valid?  Yes, providing that the priest is validly facilitated, (authorised), within a diocese and the sacramental act he is performing is done correctly.  Sacramental grace does not in any way flow from the priest or Bishop and is not dependent on his personal state of grace, although motives can certainly effect that validity of sacraments as well as their legality or licitness.  In the case you are trying to get at, on the priest's part it would effect the licitness of the sacrament, but not necessarily the validity.  Grace is only from Christ Himself and flows by the power of the Holy Spirit.  A priest is only there to facilitate that Grace through his authority granted by the Church.

Let me give you an example to make it perfectly clear.  A young Catholic couple wish to marry and the priest who is to facilitate this is behind to his bookey.  He is addicted to the ponies and he is bad at picking the winners.  He tells the couple, "I can't marry you unless you pay me 5 'large'.  They being young and ignorant, come up with the $5,000 and are married.  The priest is busted by the cops in the act of paying off the bookey and it is all over town.  Is the couple's marriage valid?  As long as they were in no way aware of the illicit nature of the priest's actions and were complicit in them, then yes, of course it is still valid!   They have no need to go through another marriage ceremony.  The priest is a valid priest and although his actions are highly illicit, the authority he still had at the time of the wedding to officiate the marriage is valid.  The local vice squad would concur for the state.  

Okay, but how about this situation.  A man and woman, married to others, want to commit adultery so they come to the same priest and offer him
 $5000 to forgive them of the sin previous to their commision of it?

[desertknight]

Okay, but how about this situation.  A man and woman, married to others, want to commit adultery so they come to the same priest and offer him
 $5000 to forgive them of the sin previous to their commision of it?

Obviously one can't ask for forgiveness for something you intend to do, but no, no sacramental grace can take.  The priest is there to facilitate, but the penitent must have true contrition in his heart.  

[Amo]

Just another case of Rome establishing yet another unneeded middle man position, to come between Christ and all those whom He has saved.  Those for whom He lived and died in order to among many other things, give all of them direct access to the very throne of God through His precious name.

Those who wish to be of the true new covenant priesthood, will spend much more time connecting others personally to God the Father Himself, through the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Son, rather than trying to establish that connection through themselves or some supposed priesthood necessary to the same.  Please, come out of the false priesthood of Rome.  Get on your knees before God the Father yourself and pour out your heart and confessions to Him in the name of His precious Son Jesus Christ, and He will far more readily here and answer your petitions from yourself, than He will if you are depending on someone else for the same. 

Jesus came to give each and everyone of us a personal relationship with God Himself.  Stop looking to others for that which Christ died to give to you.  It is an affront to God to choose to go through the intercession of other sinful human beings, when God Himself has given the life of His very own Son, so that we can speak directly to Him about every thing.  He truly does care about all the details of your life, and wants you to share them directly with Him through the precious name of His Son Jesus Christ.  It is a personal relationship with you that He desires.  Not a relationship with some go between and unneeded usurper of his authority, and genuine love and desire for a personal relationship with you.  Who would ever want to have their relationship with their children severed by some go between imposture.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[mclees8]

Good post Amo


Indulgences was extortion of the ignorant pure and simple. Was the person taken advantage of forgiven by God. Only God could be the judge. But the ignorant in this case were made to believe they had to entreat the church to be forgiven instead of truly seeking forgiveness as it is taught in scripture. 

[desertknight]

Not a relationship with some go between and unneeded usurper of his authority,

Only God could be the judge. But the ignorant in this case were made to believe they had to entreat the church to be forgiven instead of truly seeking forgiveness as it is taught in scripture.

John 20:21-23  "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:  Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose soever sins you retain, they are retained."

Oh?

[Tantor]

Not a relationship with some go between and unneeded usurper of his authority,

Only God could be the judge. But the ignorant in this case were made to believe they had to entreat the church to be forgiven instead of truly seeking forgiveness as it is taught in scripture.

John 20:21-23  "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:  Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose soever sins you retain, they are retained."

Oh?

So?.. the people Jesus spoke that to are long dead... and no where did Jesus or Peter explicitly set up any sort of succession.

[desertknight]

So?.. the people Jesus spoke that to are long dead... and no where did Jesus or Peter explicitly set up any sort of succession.

Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"

The Church Fathers disagree...

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning Bishops and Deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their Bishops in righteousness, and their Deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the Episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep,(pass away.), other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the Episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." St. Clement, ordained by the apostle Peter, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted Bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

It is necessary to obey those who are the Presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the Episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion."

Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies 180 AD.

[Tantor]

So?.. the people Jesus spoke that to are long dead... and no where did Jesus or Peter explicitly set up any sort of succession.

Holy Scripture flatly disagrees...

2 Tim 1:6  "For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Tit. 1:5  "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Tim. 4:14  " Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you,"

The Church Fathers disagree...

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning Bishops and Deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their Bishops in righteousness, and their Deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the Episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep,(pass away.), other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the Episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." St. Clement, ordained by the apostle Peter, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted Bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

It is necessary to obey those who are the Presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the Episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion."

Saint Irenaeus, Against Heresies 180 AD.

Imposition of hands does not create an Apostle.

Presbyters are not Apostles.

And there has been no mandate from Peter regarding the RCC.. so you are talking about yourself.

I don't really have much to say about Iranaeus because he was not appointed by Jesus.. he is just hearsay.  Besides, his writings seem to fall in the same category of the heresies that the original apostles were fighting against so hard.

So nothing you have said supports any of your claims.

[desertknight]

Well, you are correct that it didn't create an "Apostle", you are obviously wrong in that it did not convey their authority.

As to the Early Church Fathers, I think those who, such as Clement that I included, were instructed and ordained by the Apostles themselves and those who were the earliest Bishops and Presbyters and faithful of the Church, most of whom paid for that faith with their lives, well, I will defer to their opinion over yours.  We Catholics are lucky in that we don't have to ignore over 1,500 years of Christian teaching, history and faith.

[Tantor]

Well, you are correct that it didn't create an "Apostle", you are obviously wrong in that it did not convey their authority.

As to the Early Church Fathers, I think those who, such as Clement that I included, were instructed and ordained by the Apostles themselves and those who were the earliest Bishops and Presbyters and faithful of the Church, most of whom paid for that faith with their lives, well, I will defer to their opinion over yours.  We Catholics are lucky in that we don't have to ignore over 1,500 years of Christian teaching, history and faith.

There is no proof that Peter even knew Clement... other then from Clement's own writings... or even Linus.  As a matter of fact, there is no proof that Peter ordained anyone that the RCC claims to be his apostolic successor.. none at all.


Show me a writing from Peter himself declaring who his successor was.. or even some of Peter's contemporaries who might have been an eye witness to such a transfer of power.

I can claim to be King of America.. even write it in a book.. brain wash a few followers and in a few generations I bet people would believe my claims.

[desertknight]

Show me a writing from Peter himself declaring who his successor was.. or even some of Peter's contemporaries who might have been an eye witness to such a transfer of power.

O.K., well, as Peter would have been slightly...uh, dead when his successor would have been named, he would not have known.

As to Holy Scripture...There is not one single, solitary, example in New Testament scripture, of anyone, ever, being accepted as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon without having been ordained so through the laying on of hands by legitimate, (i.e., those who can trace their ordination back to the Apostles.), Authority.  Not one, not ever.

Tantor,  I'm thinking that you have a very erroneous idea as to what Apostolic Succession is.  It has nothing to do with "naming one's own successor."  It has nothing to do with one single line of succession.  I don't think that you get that it is not the person, handing the office off to the next guy in line, that makes for the "Succession". I really don't know if Linus was second or third or if Clement was third or forth as the Bishop of Rome.  It doesn't matter in the end.  It has little to do with the validity of Succession.  It isn't based on one single line, but a multitude of lines emanating out from the original Apostles.  Validity is conveyed by whether that person, no matter where they were in line, was validly ordained or consecrated into that position, i.e., by those or someone who has the proper authority to do so. That is the only definition of Apostolic Succession.  

[Tantor]

Show me a writing from Peter himself declaring who his successor was.. or even some of Peter's contemporaries who might have been an eye witness to such a transfer of power.

O.K., well, as Peter would have been slightly...uh, dead when his successor would have been named, he would not have known.

As to Holy Scripture...There is not one single, solitary, example in New Testament scripture, of anyone, ever, being accepted as a Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon without having been ordained so through the laying on of hands by legitimate, (i.e., those who can trace their ordination back to the Apostles.), Authority.  Not one, not ever.

Tantor,  I'm thinking that you have a very erroneous idea as to what Apostolic Succession is.  It has nothing to do with "naming one's own successor."  It has nothing to do with one single line of succession.  I don't think that you get that it is not the person, handing the office off to the next guy in line, that makes for the "Succession". I really don't know if Linus was second or third or if Clement was third or forth as the Bishop of Rome.  It doesn't matter in the end.  It has little to do with the validity of Succession.  It isn't based on one single line, but a multitude of lines emanating out from the original Apostles.  Validity is conveyed by whether that person, no matter where they were in line, was validly ordained or consecrated into that position, i.e., by those or someone who has the proper authority to do so. That is the only definition of Apostolic Succession. 

There is no such thing... it's all made up in your minds.

To me, the claims of Apostolic authority, is just a continuation of the spiritual disease that had permeated the Jewish religious leadership in the OT.. one of the wrongs that Jesus sought to right during his ministry. 

To me, there are such parallels between the OT corrupt priesthood and the RCC it cannot be coincidence..