Christian Forums

Part 2 - Indulgences

"How many of one's temporal penalties can be remitted?"


Potentially, all of them. The Church recognizes that Christ and the saints are interested in helping penitents deal with the aftermath of their sins, as indicated by the fact they always pray for us (Heb. 7:25, Rev. 5:8). Fulfilling its role in the administration of temporal penalties, the Church draws upon the rich supply of rewards God chose to bestow on the saints, who pleased him, and on his Son, who pleased him most of all.

The rewards on which the Church draws are infinite because Christ is God, so the rewards he accrued are infinite and never can be exhausted. His rewards alone, apart from the saints', could remove all temporal penalties from everyone, everywhere. The rewards of the saints are added to Christ's—not because anything is lacking in his, but because it is fitting that they be united with his rewards as the saints are united with him. Although immense, their rewards are finite, but his are infinite.



"If the Church has the resources to wipe out everyone's temporal penalties, why doesn't it do so?"


Because God does not wish this to be done. God himself instituted the pattern of temporal penalties being left behind. They fulfill valid functions, one of them disciplinary. If a child were never disciplined, he would never learn obedience. God disciplines us as his children — "the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Heb. 12:6) — so some temporal penalties must remain.

The Church cannot wipe out, with a stroke of the pen, so to speak, everyone's temporal punishments because their remission depends on the dispositions of the persons who suffer those temporal punishments. Just as repentance and faith are needed for the remission of eternal penalties, so they are needed for the remission of temporal penalties. Pope Paul VI stated, "Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God"(Indulgentarium Doctrina 11). We might say that the degree of remission depends on how well the penitent has learned his lesson.



"How does one determine by what amount penalties have been lessened?"


Before Vatican II each indulgence was said to remove a certain number of "days" from one's discipline—for instance, an act might gain "300 days' indulgence"—but the use of the term "days" confused people, giving them the mistaken impression that in purgatory time as we know it still exists and that we can calculate our "good time" in a mechanical way. The number of days associated with indulgences actually never meant that that much "time" would be taken off one's stay in purgatory. Instead, it meant that an indefinite but partial (not complete) amount of remission would be granted, proportionate to what ancient Christians would have received for performing that many days' penance. So, someone gaining 300 days' indulgence gained roughly what an early Christian would have gained by, say, reciting a particular prayer on arising for 300 days.

To overcome the confusion Paul VI issued a revision of the handbook (Enchiridion is the formal name) of indulgences. Today, numbers of days are not associated with indulgences. They are either plenary or partial.



"What's the difference between a partial and a plenary indulgence?"


"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 2, 3). Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all.



"Don't indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"


Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences, some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ's work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties, not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this, Christ's work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite, comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers, the Church acts as Christ's servant in the application of what he has done for us, and we know from Scripture that Christ's work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12, 1 Pet. 1:9).



"Isn't it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?"


If we ignore the fact of indulgences, we neglect what Christ does through us, and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ's sufferings were superabundant (far more than needed to pay for anything), Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ's sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul, it is permissible for us, even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul's language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible, and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths, holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this" (Indulgentarium Doctrina, 9, 11).



HOW TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE


To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.

To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.

To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.

Below are indulgences listed in the Handbook of Indulgences (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1991). Note that there is an indulgence for Bible reading. So, rather than discouraging Bible reading, the Catholic Church promotes it by giving indulgences for it! (This was the case long before Vatican II.)

• 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."

In summary, the practice of indulgences neither takes away nor adds to the work of Christ. It is his work, through his body the Church, raising up children in his own likeness. "The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. 'The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1474 [Indulgentarium Doctrina 5]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

"Indulgences"

Are we perhaps again dealing with trying to understand a concept in one language that started in another?

I would say that most of the myths listed above are common understandings of the word "indulgence" as used in English.  Perhaps that is not the best choice of translation for whatever the word was in Latin or Greek?

DaveW, are you a practicing Christian or a practicing Jew ?

In summary, the practice of indulgences neither takes away nor adds to the work of Christ. It is his work, through his body the Church, raising up children in his own likeness. "The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. 'The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1474 [Indulgentarium Doctrina 5]).

Quote from: neophyte on Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 13:25:27
Lively Stone, who cares what Matt Slick "THINKS"

I do. I agree with him.

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Feb 16, 2013 - 20:23:56
Sorry, I can't make the proper connection to the article about the Knights Templar.

The infallible pope made the decision to execute knights and to dissolve the order. So it shows that the RCC makes mistakes, which you recognize in this case. Now it's Luthers turn to be redeemed and in time may be regarded as a patron saint.

FireSword, I agree that a very bad mistake was made, I think you may find the following article interesting, it is rather long so I've posted first part.

The Sad History of the Knights Templar
By: Christopher Check

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share on twitterShare on linkedinShare on facebookShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
On a raw March afternoon in 1314, a scaffold stood in the shadow of Notre Dame. The people of Paris knew what macabre show was imminent. Seven years before, the King's constables had stormed all the Templar estates in France and arrested 5000 knights of the order, much to the astonishment of the people. Now the curtain was about to drop on a bizarre tragedy, one scripted by the king himself.

King Philip the Fair—grandson of St. Louis of France—had engineered the election of the pope and the relocation of the papal court to Avignon. Although the papacy may have been in the ambitious king's pocket, one of the most powerful and wealthy institutions of the day was not: The Order of the Temple. Philip knew its vast wealth and schemed to seize it.

The arrests of the Templars in France was easy: The fighting men of the order were then on the bloody border with Islam, in Spain, and on Cyprus. The Templars in France were aged veterans of the Crusades, well into their second childhood.

The things the knights confessed under torture defied belief: trampling and urinating on the Crucifix, secret rites of obscene kisses, sodomy, usury, treason, idolatry, heresy. After the arrests came seven years of inquisition, then hundreds and hundreds of public executions by burning. In the end, Pope Clement V abolished the order.

As a large crowd closed around the scaffold, the last Master of the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem, 70-year-old Jacques de Molay, stood alongside three of his brothers in arms, listening as the papal legate read their crimes in horrible detail. But mercy would yet be theirs if they repeated to the people of Paris the guilt they had confessed before the inquisition. Five stakes piled high with brushwood and faggots awaited them if they did not.

Two of the knights, eyes cast downward, mumbled their guilt. Then de Molay and Geoffrey de Charney of Normandy stepped forward.

"On this terrible day," shouted de Molay, his gaze meeting the eyes of the crowd, "in my final hour, I shall let truth triumph and declare, before heaven and all the saints, that I have committed the greatest of all crimes." The crowd pressed in.

"But my crime is this: that I confessed to malicious charges made against an order that is innocent so that I could escape further torture. I shall not confirm a first lie with a second. I renounce life willingly. I have no use for days of sorrow earned only by lies."

The King's police seized the two knights and chained them to the stakes. Brush and branches were set aflame. As the old men were roasted alive, they shouted their innocence and their love for Jesus Christ before falling silent. Thus the last Master of the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem was reduced to ashes.

Valiant Beginnings
The end of the Knights Templar was a sad close to an order whose origins two centuries earlier had been marked by valor and purity of intent. After the liberation of Jerusalem in 1099, the cities of the Holy Land were freed from the tyranny of Islam, but the countryside of Outremer remained the domain of thieves, robbers, and murderers, Saracen and otherwise. Despite these dangers, Christians from Western Europe journeyed in great numbers to the sites where the Son of God walked, preached, and worked miracles. For the brigands who filled the hillsides along the way, these pilgrims were easy prey.

Moved by their plight, around 1119 or 1120, nine Frankish knights who had settled in Jerusalem after the First Crusade took vows in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Led by Hugh of Payens and Godfrey of Saint-Omer, these knights vowed like other religious brothers to live lives of chastity, poverty, and obedience. Altogether new, however, in monastic history, to say nothing of military history, was their fourth vow: to police the roads of the Holy Land for the protection of pilgrims. Soon nine grew into 30, and King Baldwin II of Jerusalem gave the knights a wing of his palace believed to lie on the site of Temple of Solomon. The Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem, or simply, the Templars, were born. As Desmond Seward writes, they became the "the first properly disciplined and officered troops in the West since Roman times" and "the storm troopers of the Crusades" (The Monks of War: The Military Religious Orders, 17).

Bernard of Clairvaux believed that the union in the Templar of the man of prayer and the man of war was exactly what the Holy Land needed. He requested from the pope a formal rule and papal approval for the order. In January 1128, at the Council of Troyes, Bernard presided over the writing of the 72 articles that made up the order's Rule of Life. Modeled on the Rule of Saint Benedict, the Templar Rule covered all aspects of Templar life, guiding the monk whose job was also to train for combat and, when the need arose, shed the blood of the Saracen in defense of the cross.

With a rule, the official recognition of the Church, and the endorsement of Bernard of Clairvaux, the Templar Order grew quickly. Knights were eager to join an operation that promised better to organize the crusading spirit of the age, and those unable to join were eager to give their support. A cynic might say that the Templars were great fundraisers, but that would misunderstand the fire with which this new order set alight the Christian imaginations of the people of this blessed time, people whose gaze, like all pilgrims, was set not on this world but on the next. Cash gifts from the nobility of Christendom poured in, as well as donations of land, estates, and manor houses, all made, as their charters reveal, for remission of sins.

By the middle of the 12th century, the Templars had an extensive network of agricultural estates, or preceptories, throughout France, Italy, Spain, and England. These funded the high cost of the Templars' defense of Christianity's tenuous hold on the Holy Land. Secular knights would come and go, but it was the military religious orders—the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the Teutonic Knights—who constituted the standing army of the Crusades.

De Laude Novae Militiae
To reinforce in the minds of the Templars the legitimacy of their calling and to convince the secular and spiritual leaders of Christendom that this new hybrid was altogether proper and good, Bernard again picked up his pen. Although a moral tradition of war in the service of a just cause was at least as old as St. Augustine, Christians of the age nonetheless understood (with reason) that the sphere of prayer and the sphere of war were occupied by different types of men. Bernard's treatise De Laude Novae Militiae (In Praise of the New Knighthood) approved the theology of the soldier-monk:

A new knighthood has appeared in the land of the Incarnation, a knighthood that fights a double battle against adversaries of flesh and blood and also against the spirit of evil. This new knighthood is worthy of all the praise given to men of God. The knight who protects his soul with the armor of faith, as he covers his body with a coat of mail, is truly without fear and above reproach. Doubly armed he fears neither men nor demons.

Bernard distinguished the Templars from their secular counterparts. He argued that the outward appearance of a knight reflected the inward disposition of his soul: The close-cropped hair of the Templar and his plain white woolen tunic represented Templar humility and the goodness of their purpose, while the finery of the secular knights suggested vanity and self-love.

The second half of the treatise inextricably tied the Templars to the Holy Land. Bernard piously described Outremer's "abundant delights." In so doing he reinforced in the imaginations of his readers that the Holy Land is the patrimony of Christendom and that, as guardians of these places, the Templars were performing work central to God's Providence. Bernard explained to the Templars themselves how dwelling so close to these sites and visiting them often was central to their spiritual growth.

He encouraged the knights to become true guardians of these holy sites by developing their understanding of the places' spiritual meanings and passing them on to pilgrims to the Holy Land. Understanding the relationship of the Templars to these sites is critical to understanding the order. These holy places gave them their purpose, and De Laude Novae Militiae made this crystal-clear.

NEXT-
A Force to be Reckoned

Part 2

A Force to be Reckoned
Picture 500 Templar Knights astride their stallions in a synchronized charge at full gallop, their mail glistening in the sun, their lances couched and leveled, their banners straining, smashing through the Saracen lines and dispersing them to all corners of the battlefield.

Whether it was the rule against desertion or the fraternity felt by the Templars all devoted to so high a cause, the Knights of the Temple were formidable in battle, and the cavalry charge of which they were masters was terrifying to the Turks. One need not be a physicist to imagine the pounds per square inch at the tip of a couched lanced behind which was a heavily armed and armored knight astride a thundering horse. Multiply the effect by 500 knights so closely ordered that an "apple thrown in their midst would not fall to the ground but instead hit either man or horse." Now imagine that line reforming and charging several times as the sergeants in the infantry pursued the scattered enemy.

A 12th-century pilgrim to the Holy Land described the Templars in the field:

Their black and white standard, which is called the baucent, goes before them into battle. They go into battle without making a noise. They are the first to desire engagement and more vigorous than the others. When the trumpet sounds for advance, they piously sing this psalm of David: "Not to us Lord, not to us but to your name give the glory." They couch their lances and charge into the enemy. As one body they ravage the ranks of the enemy, they never yield. They either destroy the foe completely or they die. In returning from battle they are the last to go behind the rest of the crowd looking after all the rest and protecting them. (Helen Nicholson, Knights Templar 1120-1312, 45)

Throughout the Crusades, the Templars served as vanguard and rearguard for columns on the march. Kings Louis VII, Richard III, and Louis IX all entrusted the Templars with the task of instilling and preserving order within their otherwise poorly disciplined armies, on the march and on the battlefield.

For all their military prowess, however, the battlefield story of the Templars—indeed, the story of the Crusades—is one of a long, slow defeat, a phrase J.R.R. Tolkien says is the only Christian understanding of history. In defeat, however, the Templars often obtained glory by making brave stands against much larger Saracen armies. When captured, Templars went silently to their executions rather than convert to Islam.

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, ever a precarious enterprise, lasted for the two centuries it did because of such sacrifices by Templar Knights. First in and last out of every major battle, more than 20,000 Templars gave their lives fighting the enemies of Jesus Christ during the two centuries of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. As Edward Gibbon put it: "The firmest Bulwark of Jerusalem was founded on the Knights of the Hospital of Saint John and of the Temple of Solomon; on the strange association of a monastic and a military life, which fanaticism might suggest but which policy must approve" (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). (See "Military Monastics," page 22.)

De Molay's Vain Quest
To the princes of Christendom, however, looking for a scapegoat for the loss of the Holy Land with the fall of Acre in 1291, the military orders were an easy target. Philip IV advocated merging the Templars and the other military orders into one order under a Warrior King—namely himself. The last Templar Master, Jacques de Molay, rejected the idea. To a man who had been raising his sword in the desert dust of Outremer for 30 years, proposals from a king more experienced in devaluing currency than fighting Saracens must have been particularly annoying. What de Molay did not see was Philip's darker motive.

Historians have accused de Molay of naiveté. He seems to have had the uncomplicated mind and heart of a soldier, a heart and mind forged on crusade with St. Louis and on the crumbling ramparts of Acre. His reputation for direct speech and uncompromising commitment to the Templar purpose—fighting Islam in the Holy Land—earned him the admiration of his brother knights and, in 1292, a year after the fall of Acre, the order's top post.

To de Molay, the order's new headquarters on Cyprus was a temporary solution. The Templars' identity was rooted in the Holy Land and to there, God willing, the soldier-monks would return. From 1293 to 1296, he made the rounds in Western Christendom trying to stir up fervor for a new crusade to take back Jerusalem.

His efforts bore no fruit, as Western princes were preoccupied with their own territorial struggles. Without their help, the Templars were reduced to futile raids on the coasts of Syria and Egypt, but de Molay never gave up hope that his Knights would once again take the vanguard of a major crusade. With that hope, the Templar Master responded in 1307 to a summons from Pope Clement V. De Molay believed that the princes of Christendom had at last adjusted their priorities and were preparing to march East.

Betrayal, Arrest, and Torment
First, he called on the royal court in France. Philip borrowed huge sums of money from the Templars. The Paris Temple had served as a refuge for the king when he escaped an angry mob four years prior. While in residence, in only a few short days, Philip and his court consumed 806 pounds of bread and 2077 liters of wine. The profligacy was typical of a king who could never balance his books, but his sojourn at the Paris Temple gave him an insider's understanding of the Templar Order's great wealth.

Although the Hospitallers owned some 19,000 manors to the Templars' 9000, the Templars were vastly richer. Their banks were the most reliable in Christendom. Whatever crusading ideas de Molay brought to this meeting with the young French king, it was the Templar's assets on which Philip's imagination was focused, for they were the means to Capetian hegemony in Europe: The man who already controlled the papacy now was determined to supplant the German emperor. That de Molay sensed none of Philip's ambition is doubtful. What he failed to see coming was the treachery the king had already set in motion in his desire to seize the Templar wealth. Taking leave of the king on, he thought, good terms, the old Master made his way to Poitiers to see the pope.

A compromiser and a vacillator, Clement could not have much inspired the old warrior. It must have left de Molay speechless when out of the mouth a man he surely disdained as a weak puppet of the French monarch came the appalling charges that were to set in motion the final passion of the Templars. De Molay had come to plan a new crusade and refute the foolish suggestion of uniting the military orders. Instead he found himself defending his order against charges too horrifying to dream: The Templars, he was told, was some kind of demonic secret society with unnatural and blasphemous rituals.

Denying the charges, de Molay returned to Paris to serve as a pallbearer at the funeral of Catherine of Valois. He was unaware that her brother-in-law, the man Dante called the scourge of France and the new Pontius Pilate, Philip le Bel, was the author of the charges.

Just one day after the funeral, the arrests were made and the unthinkable charges levied. The Templar Knights had, it was alleged, denied Christ, spat and urinated on the crucifix, kissed one another on the mouth, on the navel, and at the base of the spine, and then joined in an orgy of sodomy as they adored and caressed an idol in the shape of a human head. After 11 days of torture in a Paris dungeon, de Molay confessed as much to the inquisition, begging the pope and the most Christian king Philip for mercy. In an open letter to his brethren he instructed them to confess all their evil practices, just as he had done.

Citing de Molay's confession, Philip asked all the kings of Christendom to arrest Templars in their countries. Edward I of England wrote back and said the accusations were impossible to believe. James of Aragon refused to arrest men who had so courageously served Christ "fearing neither loss of blood nor death." Both monarchs knew the day's instruments of torture and the confessions they could elicit. (See "Medieval Methods of Extraction," page 24.)

Defense and Counterattack

Part 3 of 3;

Defense and Counterattack
Relief, however, might yet come. Pope Clement, displaying uncharacteristic backbone, suddenly intervened. "You have perpetrated these attacks," he wrote to Philip, "on the persons and goods of people directly subject to the Roman Church. In this action of yours . . . everybody sees . . . an insulting contempt for us and the Church of Rome."

Taking over the investigation, Clement sent two cardinals to Paris, before whom de Molay and more than 60 other Templars revoked their confession, one saying that under torture he had been prepared to confess to killing God himself. Next, lawyers at Paris University told the king there was no legal justification for his trial. They added that even if the order were suppressed, the throne of France had no claim to its assets. Two inquisitors sent to England got nowhere when Edward explained that accused men in England were entitled to a jury of freemen. Meanwhile, Pierre de Bologna, a priest and member of the order, marshaled a brilliant defense:

It is unbelievable that such scandalous charges should be taken seriously by anyone. It is true that some Templars have admitted them but only because of torture and suffering. It is not in any way to be marveled at that there are those who have lied; what is more wonderful is that any have kept the truth, knowing the tribulations and dangers, menaces and outrages, which those who speak the truth suffer daily and continually. (Stephen Howarth, The Knights Templar: Christian Chivalry And The Crusades, 1095-1314, 295)

Torture, de Bologna asserted, had deprived his brothers of "freedom of mind."

At the moment it seemed Bologna's defense would exonerate his brothers, Philip exploited a loophole in canon law; if the Bishop of Rome would not do his bidding, he would find a bishop who would. He caused the opening of a provincial trial supervised by Archbishop Philip de Marigny of Sens, whose archdiocese included Paris. Marigny was brother of the king's chief financial minister, and his judgement came quickly: The 54 Templars he had examined were all guilty. They were burned at the stake in a field outside of Paris. The surviving Templars knew the game was up. Soon, over 100 Knights had suffered execution by burning.

Bologna's assistant, Renaud de Provins, came from Sens, but was soon summoned for examination himself, which even Clement could not prevent. When the Templars saw that their own defense counsel was not immune, they realized the trial was a farce. Within five months, hundreds of Templars who had retracted their confessions now retracted their retractions, preferring a life of degradation to death by burning.

The Knights Annihilated
The pope lost his resolve, and at the Council of Vienne in 1312, he issued his bull of suppression:

In view of the suspicion, infamy, loud insinuations and other things which have been brought against the order and also the secret and clandestine reception of the brothers of this order; in view moreover of the serious scandal which has arisen from these things, which it did not seem could be stopped while the order remained in being, and the danger to faith and souls, and the many horrible things which have been done by very many of the brothers of this order, who have lapsed into sin of wicked apostasy, the crime of detestable idolatry and the execrable outrage of the sodomites, it is not without bitterness and sadness of heart that we abolish the aforesaid Order of the Temple . . . (Vox in Excelso)

With a few words, the pope had done what no Muslim army could do in two centuries: destroyed the Templars. Philip, who for good measure had surrounded Vienne with his army, ended up with nothing. Clement gave all the assets of the order to the Hospitallers, though the transfer took many years. The pope delayed judging de Molay until 1314, and then he sent two cardinals in his place. By then the Grand Master was 70 and had sat in a Paris dungeon for six-and-a-half years. He died an agonizing death but with his honor intact.

Philip and Clement followed him to the grave within a year. De Molay's curse, some say, brought the end of the Capetian dynasty, which did not outlast Philip's three sons.

Elegy for the Soldier-Monk
Although a few Templars may have indulged in acts contra naturum or spoken heresy, the charges that an entire order was mired in the filthiest corruption do not bear much scrutiny. Only a few months before the arrests of 1307, the rulers of Christendom were planning the merger of all the military orders. There is no way such conversations could have been conducted if there had been any kind of suspicion that the Templars were rotten. Their sickness would have overwhelmed the new order. Moreover, confessions given under torture are inadmissible as evidence, whether historical or legal.

The Templars' demise has been blamed on a growing arrogance within an order that had gone from being the poor fellow soldiers of Jesus Christ to Europe's most powerful bankers. The charge goes that they abandoned the humility and poverty that informed the order at its dawn. To be sure, "hubris goeth before the fall," but a deeper answer may lie in St. Bernard's letter to the Templars: It was the holy sites that gave these soldier-monks their raison d'être. Separated from them, they stopped being Templars.

Nonetheless, for a time, on the shores and on the plains and on the ramparts of Outremer, the courage of the warrior was joined with the piety of the monk into one fervent soldier of Christ, the Knight of the Temple of Jerusalem, and whatever his shortcomings, the story of the West is more magnificent and more worthy of our love for his valor and his sacrifices.

SIDEBARS

Military Monastics
In garrison, the Templar began his day with matins, directly followed by prime, terce, and sext. When the Templars prayed the office, they said several hours in one sitting to create ample time in the afternoon for uninterrupted weapons training with lance, broadsword, mace, dagger and shield, and crossbow.

Meals were taken in silence as a brother priest read from Scripture. Fasting, except on certain liturgical occasions, was discouraged; Knights had to stay fit to fight. Meat was eaten three times a week. A Knight could not leave the table without permission unless he became suddenly afflicted by, of all things, a nosebleed. Other exceptions in the rule are curious, as well. Brothers could miss one of the hours if they were in the act of baking, forging a weapon, shoeing a horse, or washing their hair. A brother who was so excused was required to pray a set number of Pater Nosters.

At weekly chapter meeting, brothers confessed transgressions against the rule, and penance, decided by the whole of the company while the accused waited outside, would be issued. Transgressions willingly confessed received less severe punishments than those revealed by accusations, and accusations that the brethren determined to be malicious were punished harshly. Losing or carelessly damaging a weapon or mistreating a horse incurred harsh punishment—the Templars were very conscious of the expense of their profession and did not tolerate waste. Crimes warranting expulsion from the order included simony, larceny, heresy, treason, the murder of a Christian, revealing the secrets of the chapter, misrepresenting one's social class to gain entry as a knight, and fleeing the battlefield.

Bringing the Templar cavalry charge to fruition required an extensive support network. More numerous than the Knights were the brother sergeants, whose duties included repairing mail, forging weapons, caring for horses, cooking, fighting as infantry, and serving as men-at-arms to the more heavily armored knights.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medieval Methods of Extraction
Stripped of their habits, chained, and cast into dungeons, the old men were tortured with rack and thumbscrew. The soles of their feet were smeared with animal fat and then held over hot coals. Their weary frames were crushed under iron weights.

Sometimes the accused was tied down, a cloth stuffed in his mouth. Water poured into the cloth caused it to swell: The choice was to confess or drown. A more creative option was to place a man into a pit no wider than himself, where he would be left to stand in his filth and starve. The rack was used to dislocate shoulders and hips.

Subtler methods of interrogation worked as well. Denied sleep and the chance to void his bowels or bladder, the accused could be subjected to a constant battery of bewildering questions by an endless string of interrogators, some cruel, some appearing compassionate. Rare is the man who could withstand this to the point of death, which would be his only relief. Under such conditions, hundreds and hundreds of Templars confessed to appalling crimes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading
The Trial of the Templars (2nd ed.) by Malcolm Barber (Cambridge)
The Crusades: A History by Jonathan Riley-Smith (Continuum International)
The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden (Rowan & Littlefield)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher Check is Director of Development at Catholic Answers. A graduate of Rice University, for nearly two decades he served as vice president of The Rockford Institute. Before that he served for seven years as a field artillery officer in the Marine Corps, attaining the grade of captain....
more...

I think I've read that article before, or it seems as if it has been taken from other articles.

Though this one, it missed out the prophecy of the grand master, who on his dying moments predicted Philips and Clements death and both dies within one year.

Quote from: BondServant on Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 04:49:37
Selene, I am going to ask you very kindly to please refrain from a) twisting my words and b) claiming I said things I did not.

I would also like for you to please answer the question that I asked instead of avoiding it.

Thank you very much.

Bondservant, this is what you stated below: 

QuoteActually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

Further more, it was the church who excommunicated Luther.  After three years of denigrating the man and launching false accusations against him, the bishops and cardinals convinced the pope to excommunicate him.

So, I asked you "where is the historical documentation that the selling of indulgences was more widespread than that one small area of Germany? 

As for Luther's excommunication, I already stated that Luther was excommunicated because of teaching the doctrine sola scriptura, which goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.  He was not excommunicated for teaching that salvation comes from Jesus Christ.  He was excommunicated for such doctrines as sola scriptura. 

Quote from: neophyte on Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 11:12:53
BondServant, you wrote:"neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?"

Well  BondServant, as Selene stated; " You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation? 

neophyte, you are exactly correct.  I asked if the catholic church taught that the sale of indulgences was limited to wittenburg.

Selense said I "claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany"

There is a big difference between what I asked and what she claimed.

When I was in the army, one day we lost a set of radio transmitters.
When the loss was discovered, I made a report. Three days later I was called in to the majors office and he asked me why I filed the report.
When I told him that we lost the transmitters, he asked me to open the equipment checklist and read what was on it.
I started reading: one truck, 4 sets camouflage nets, one tool box....2 radio transmitters.
At that point the major stopped me and said: Did I just hear you reading that your truck has 2 transmitters? See, you cant have lost them because they are on the checklist.
His point was: You shouldn't have lost them, but you did because you did not use the check list.

Same is the excuse of the RCC when it is about indulgences.

Everybody knows that indulgences were sold, for hard cash, to finance building projects.
The evidence that indulgences were widely abused is all over the place, and knowledge of this went all the way up to the top.
This is what Luther agitated against.

Just like the major, the RCC keeps on supporting their denial, by refering to regulations how an indulgence should be used.
In other words: Indulgences were not sold, because the regulations say they can't.

Fact is however that regardless the presence of the check list, I did loose the transmitters.
Fact is also that regardless the presence of regulations, indulgences were shamelessly abused and sold to the highest bidder.


Throughout history there is a long list of evil comitted by the church (or churches).
Why are we so afraid to admit that the church has done great wrongs in the name of Jesus?

Quote from: BondServant on Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 21:07:25

Quote from: neophyte on Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 11:12:53
BondServant, you wrote:"neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?"

Well  BondServant, as Selene stated; " You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation? 

neophyte, you are exactly correct.  I asked if the catholic church taught that the sale of indulgences was limited to wittenburg.

Selense said I "claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany"

There is a big difference between what I asked and what she claimed.

The "selling of indulgences" is illegal.  It is an abuse of indulgences.  And you did not ask.  You claimed that the selling of indulgences was more widespread and no only in Germany.  This is what you stated: 

QuoteIndulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

There is nothing in that statement that qualifies it as a question, so you were not asking a question.  You were making an accusation.  Selling of indulgences was what was happening in Germany, which you claimed was more widespread, and not just in Germany.  The selling of indulgences is abuse of indulgences because it is illegal to sell it. 

Yet indulges in and of themselves, apart from the abuses, are a useless bit of religiosity that is made up and has no substance or power, nor has God said anything in His word about such a thing.

I am playing straight.  We were speaking about the selling of indulgences.  Luther was correct that the practice of selling indulgences was wrong.  And in my post, I stated that the abuses of selling indulgences only occurred in Germany.  It did not occur anywhere else.  Then you posted that it was widespread and did not just occur in Germany.  And that is why I asked where is the historical documentation that this corruption of selling indulgences was widespread?  Your post #14 was what I was referring to?   Don't you remember?  This is what I stated in my post: 

QuoteFrom Selene: The entire Bible does screams "unity."  Perhaps, Luther should have stayed and corrected the problems that was happening in his area.  The selling of indulgences (which is illegal) was only occurring in his part of the country in Germany.

And this was your response to me:

QuotePosted by Bondservant:Actually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

The part in which I bolded is what I was referring to you.  You posted this to me in response to my post about the selling of indulgences, and stated "Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small are of Germany).    So, where is the historical documents showing that these abuses were widespread as you claimed?? 

Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:23:29
Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Brother Bondservant, I never even mention the Spanish Inquisition or anything about torture.  In my post, I specifically mentioned Martin Luther and that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany.  And asking you to provide evidence of your statement is not an attack.  It is not even a personal attack.  I simply ask you to provide historical documents showing that the selling of indulgences was widespread and did not just occur in Germany as you claimed.  If you ask me to provide evidence that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany, I can do that. 

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:53:53

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:23:29
Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Brother Bondservant, I never even mention the Spanish Inquisition or anything about torture.  In my post, I specifically mentioned Martin Luther and that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany.  And asking you to provide evidence of your statement is not an attack.  It is not even a personal attack.  I simply ask you to provide historical documents showing that the selling of indulgences was widespread and did not just occur in Germany as you claimed.  If you ask me to provide evidence that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany, I can do that. 

Please do Selene. i would be interested in that. Tell me do you think this white washes the Catholic church ?

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:53:53

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:23:29
Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Brother Bondservant, I never even mention the Spanish Inquisition or anything about torture.  In my post, I specifically mentioned Martin Luther and that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany.  And asking you to provide evidence of your statement is not an attack.  It is not even a personal attack.  I simply ask you to provide historical documents showing that the selling of indulgences was widespread and did not just occur in Germany as you claimed.  If you ask me to provide evidence that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany, I can do that. 

Who with stood Luthers charge? Did it come from Rome? I do not recall any scolding of certain ones who sold indugences in Germany or any where else for that matter. But maybe you have something.

I have a question.   If the indugence deals only with the temporal punishment that is handed down by the earthly church and has no bearing on his being forgiven by Christ: and if this person truly from his heart asked the Lord to forgive and then excepts his forgiveness by faith that he truly repents is he not forgiven? If this person then does not inter in to temporal punishment for the church or to use indugences to lesson said punishment, Would he still be forgiven by Christ who simply forgave us if we but just believe and repent.

One more question. Say a man is dieing and has no church near or any Priest to give him absolution truly reaches out to God for his forgivness as also the theif on the cross. Is he not forgiven? You say he will serve in purgatory which you say if he intered into temporal punishment from the earthly church it has no bearing on purgatory.
Why then indulgences?   Why does this not add as 2 and 2 for me.

Is Jesus forgiveness suffiecient or not?  Should not we let God be the Judge? I see no evidence of a purgatory in scripture. 

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 07:22:05

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:53:53

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:23:29
Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Brother Bondservant, I never even mention the Spanish Inquisition or anything about torture.  In my post, I specifically mentioned Martin Luther and that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany.  And asking you to provide evidence of your statement is not an attack.  It is not even a personal attack.  I simply ask you to provide historical documents showing that the selling of indulgences was widespread and did not just occur in Germany as you claimed.  If you ask me to provide evidence that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany, I can do that. 

Who with stood Luthers charge? Did it come from Rome? I do not recall any scolding of certain ones who sold indugences in Germany or any where else for that matter. But maybe you have something.

I remember the pope at that time was outraged! He immediately called the guy who sold the indulgences to Rome and excommunicated him.
But maybe I remember wrong...

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 07:12:41

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:53:53

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 01:23:29
Selene, you are not playing it straight.  You blatantly ignored two very specific questions, twisted my words and launched an attack.

Frankly, your demand is silly.  The corruption of the 15th and 16th century church is well documented. The spanish inquisition?  Ever hear of it?  Innocent people tortured for spurious allegations.  How about the The Alhambra Decree which forced half a million jews to leave their homes?  John Tezel ring a bell?  He travelled all over Europe selling indulgences.

The fact that you ignored my questions, twisted my words and are demanding specific documentation of a well documented history speaks volumes.

I am going to bow out, because you are not playing straight and I doubt you will change your methods.

Brother Bondservant, I never even mention the Spanish Inquisition or anything about torture.  In my post, I specifically mentioned Martin Luther and that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany.  And asking you to provide evidence of your statement is not an attack.  It is not even a personal attack.  I simply ask you to provide historical documents showing that the selling of indulgences was widespread and did not just occur in Germany as you claimed.  If you ask me to provide evidence that the selling of indulgences occurred only in Germany, I can do that. 

Please do Selene. i would be interested in that. Tell me do you think this white washes the Catholic church ?

Gladly.  Below is the information and I provided the weblink below.  You see, mclees, it was Johann Tetzel who was preaching the selling of indulgences in Germany.  Luther opposed him, and he was correct in opposing him because Tetzel was going against the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Perhaps, you can show me the documents or any evidence that the selling of indulgences was also being widely practiced outside of Germany as well?? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tetzel, Johann
Tetzel, Johann , c.1465-1519, German preacher, b. Pirna, Germany. He joined the Dominicans. He became a well-known preacher and was made inquisitor general of Poland at the instance of Cajetan. In 1503 he preached an indulgence mission for the Teutonic Knights and in 1506 another along the Rhine. In 1517 his promotion of the indulgence for the erection of St. Peter's Church aroused the indignation of Martin Luther, whose theses were in part promoted by Tetzel's preaching. In 1518, Tetzel replied to Luther's theses, and their dispute became famous throughout Germany. Tetzel soon retired in bad health to his monastery at Leipzig, where he was overwhelmed by the attacks of his enemies and the censures of the papal legate. Tetzel has been greatly overrated in importance. He had no thought of personal gain from his preaching of the indulgence. His teaching on indulgences was not in accord with the doctrine of the church; the sine qua non in gaining an indulgence is to feel contrition for all sins, but Tetzel did not require that for indulgences gained on behalf of the dead, only for those gained for oneself.

http://www.reference.com/browse/Tetzel%2C+Johann

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 08:28:33
One more question. Say a man is dieing and has no church near or any Priest to give him absolution truly reaches out to God for his forgivness as also the theif on the cross. Is he not forgiven? You say he will serve in purgatory which you say if he intered into temporal punishment from the earthly church it has no bearing on purgatory.
Why then indulgences?   Why does this not add as 2 and 2 for me.

Is Jesus forgiveness suffiecient or not?  Should not we let God be the Judge? I see no evidence of a purgatory in scripture. 

Of course, the guy is forgiven.  Anyone who reaches out to God asking for forgiveness in sincerity is always forgiven.  Purgatory is for Christians who died suddenly. 

Let's say, example, that a husband got into a bad argument with his wife.  He said some mean things to her and left in a bad temper.  Driving down the road, this Christian is so angry that he didn't see the stop sign and got into a bad car accident, which killed him instantly.  Anger is a sin.  Did he have time to repent of that sin?  No.  Did he have the time to ask God for forgiveness?  No.  Why?  Because he's was killed instantly.  So, is he going straight to hell because he committed the sin of anger and didn't have the opportunity to cool down from his anger and repent?  Do you think that when a Christian experiences anger, he no longer becomes a Christian??  Or perhaps you believe that Christians cannot become angry?   

For us Catholics, this Christian who believes in God will go into Purgatory where he will be purified from the sin of anger.  Then he will enter Heaven.  The Bible says that a person with sin cannot enter Heaven. 

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 08:50:23

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 08:28:33
One more question. Say a man is dieing and has no church near or any Priest to give him absolution truly reaches out to God for his forgivness as also the theif on the cross. Is he not forgiven? You say he will serve in purgatory which you say if he intered into temporal punishment from the earthly church it has no bearing on purgatory.
Why then indulgences?   Why does this not add as 2 and 2 for me.

Is Jesus forgiveness suffiecient or not?  Should not we let God be the Judge? I see no evidence of a purgatory in scripture. 

Of course, the guy is forgiven.  Anyone who reaches out to God asking for forgiveness in sincerity is always forgiven.  Purgatory is for Christians who died suddenly. 

Let's say, example, that a husband got into a bad argument with his wife.  He said some mean things to her and left in a bad temper.  Driving down the road, this Christian is so angry that he didn't see the stop sign and got into a bad car accident, which killed him instantly.  Anger is a sin.  Did he have time to repent of that sin?  No.  Did he have the time to ask God for forgiveness?  No.  Why?  Because he's was killed instantly.  So, is he going straight to hell because he committed the sin of anger and didn't have the opportunity to cool down from his anger and repent?  Do you think that when a Christian experiences anger, he no longer becomes a Christian??  Or perhaps you believe that Christians cannot become angry?   

For us Catholics, this Christian who believes in God will go into Purgatory where he will be purified from the sin of anger.  Then he will enter Heaven.  The Bible says that a person with sin cannot enter Heaven.

This is a false belief based on the misunderstanding of God's grace toward His own. Sins don't keep us from heaven if we have been justified in Christ! It is our position in Christ that gains us heaven no matter what!

The bible says that those who are unrighteous cannot see heaven. The unrighteous are all who have not believed in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord.

Purgatory and the false teaching about indulgences are made up doctrines by and for those who do not have a revelation of God's grace, and so have a sense that the blood of Jesus, His great sacrifice for us is somehow insufficient to clear us of ALL sin---past, present and future. They think we have to be re-saved as we go after each sin---which is a form of spiritual bondage. Yes, we need to repent, but that isn't for salvation again! We need to repent as we go to maintain intimate fellowship with God!

God's grace continually flows out and pours over us, keeping us.

Lively Stone, So why do you think you know more than St.Paul ? Whose words are we to believe ,yours or St.Paul's ? Especially when St.Paul was there and you weren't.

Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.

Acts 7:51 - you stiff-necked people, you always resist the Holy Spirit. We, by our own freewill, can resist God and His grace, and turn away from Him.

Rom. 11:20-23 – in expounding on Jesus' teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they don't persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be "cut off"). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the "once saved, always saved" position.

1 Cor. 9:24-27 – Paul says that all the runners compete, but only one wins the prize. Paul recognizes that if he doesn't train himself properly in perseverance, he too can become "disqualified." The word "disqualified" comes from the Greek word "adokimos" which literally means cut off from Christ, or reprobate. When "adokimos" is used in the Scriptures, it always refers to those who are to be condemned by God. It has nothing to do with going to heaven with less rewards. See, for example, Rom. 1:28; Titus 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:8; Heb. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:5-7. This proves that Saint Paul thought he could lose his salvation. No one would reasonably argue that Paul wasn't "saved" when he wrote the Scriptures. So if Saint Paul thought that he could lose his salvation, why do many Protestants think that they cannot lose theirs?

1 Cor. 9:24 – Paul says that only one wins the "prize" (brabeion). To further prove that the race Paul is writing about refers to our journey to heaven, "brabeion" always has a soteriological implication. See, for example, Phil. 3:14 where "prize" refers to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (which is heaven).

Protestants have hope in God. I'd hate to be a catholic, like walking on egg shells.

Fire Stone, is that the best you can do , why the evasive response ? Can't you answer/ refute from the bible my last post ?

Quote from: neophyte on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 14:34:28
Fire Stone, is that the best you can do , why the evasive response ? Can't you answer/ refute from the bible my last post ?

Yes and no. I don't want to argue with verses as the end result becomes a stalemate. My premise is to stand upon the rock who is Christ. Catholics change that rock into a sand, by saying that even one sin not repented off, sends someone in purgatory or hell. As a protestant we have faith that Gods grace will go far, but will not be mocked.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 09:39:10
Yes, we need to repent, but that isn't for salvation again! We need to repent as we go to maintain intimate fellowship with God!

And if we don't repent and maintain intimate fellowship with God, do we still go to heaven?

If we commit a sin that is deadly (1Jn 5:16-17) and do not repent, do we still go to heaven?

Quote from: neophyte on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 13:52:22
Lively Stone, So why do you think you know more than St.Paul ? Whose words are we to believe ,yours or St.Paul's ? Especially when St.Paul was there and you weren't.

Why do you preach what Paul never did? I teach what Paul taught.

Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church. [/quote]

Nonsense. Our salvation is not dependent on our faithfulness! It is dependent on Jesus' faithfulness!

QuoteRom. 11:20-23 – in expounding on Jesus' teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they don't persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be "cut off"). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the "once saved, always saved" position.

More nonsense. Paul was addressing the fact that the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles (believing Gentiles, not Romans) were grafted in, and warned that if the Gentile race would no longer receive Christ, then they could also be cut off. It has nothing to do with individuals falling away!

Quote1 Cor. 9:24-27 – Paul says that all the runners compete, but only one wins the prize. Paul recognizes that if he doesn't train himself properly in perseverance, he too can become "disqualified." The word "disqualified" comes from the Greek word "adokimos" which literally means cut off from Christ, or reprobate. When "adokimos" is used in the Scriptures, it always refers to those who are to be condemned by God. It has nothing to do with going to heaven with less rewards. See, for example, Rom. 1:28; Titus 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:8; Heb. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:5-7. This proves that Saint Paul thought he could lose his salvation. No one would reasonably argue that Paul wasn't "saved" when he wrote the Scriptures. So if Saint Paul thought that he could lose his salvation, why do many Protestants think that they cannot lose theirs?

Paul was saying he doesn't want to be considered a counterfeit, but remains steadfast in his faith. there is something to be said for perseverance. No, he was not talking about losing salvation. Paul never considered that he could lose his salvation, nor did he teach that!

Quote from: winsome on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 14:47:50

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 09:39:10
Yes, we need to repent, but that isn't for salvation again! We need to repent as we go to maintain intimate fellowship with God!

And if we don't repent and maintain intimate fellowship with God, do we still go to heaven?

Those who sin and do not repent (some people are unaware that what they are doing is sin) will have a limited fellowship with God, yet their reward is still heaven.

QuoteIf we commit a sin that is deadly (1Jn 5:16-17) and do not repent, do we still go to heaven?

Christians are promised heaven! There are people who are false and continue to embrace evil and to commit willful and vile sins that lead to damnation. These people are false converts. We are to leave them to God.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 17:08:26

Quote from: winsome on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 14:47:50

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 09:39:10
Yes, we need to repent, but that isn't for salvation again! We need to repent as we go to maintain intimate fellowship with God!

And if we don't repent and maintain intimate fellowship with God, do we still go to heaven?

Those who sin and do not repent (some people are unaware that what they are doing is sin) will have a limited fellowship with God, yet their reward is still heaven.

Would you care to justify that from scripture?

Thanks

Quote from: Lively Stone link=topic=71942.msg1054804090#msg1054804090

QuoteIf we commit a sin that is deadly (1Jn 5:16-17) and do not repent, do we still go to heaven?

Christians are promised heaven! There are people who are false and continue to embrace evil and to commit willful and vile sins that lead to damnation. These people are false converts. We are to leave them to God.

That's the copout of OSAS isn't it?

If you do seriously sin after being saved then you were never really saved in the first place!

That means we can never know if we are saved until we are dead because we can never know if we will commit a deadly sin in the future.

There is no scriptural justification for such a belief.

You need to bear in mind Ez 18:24
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 16:56:14

Paul was saying he doesn't want to be considered a counterfeit, but remains steadfast in his faith. there is something to be said for perseverance. No, he was not talking about losing salvation. Paul never considered that he could lose his salvation, nor did he teach that!

Really? Have you never read Galatians?

Paul is writing to Christians who getting them selves circumcised and says (among other strictures):
but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again? ......I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have laboured for you in vain. (Gal 4:9,11)
Why would Paul be afraid that he had laboured in vain if their salvation was assured?
Why would he ask if they wanted to be slaves to them all over again?

Paul is concerned that these sons of God are turning away from God and back to the works of Judaism and will lose their inheritance.

He also says that now he must be again in labour until Christ be formed in you! (Gal 4;19). They are formed in Christ no longer.

He continues:
You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21)

At the end of the letter he says:

Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. (Gal 6:7-9)

Have you nevcer read Phillipians chapter 3?

In verses 10&11  Paul wants to have righteousness based on faith not on following the law and the sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Why does Paul want to share in the sufferings of Christ if salvation is assured?
Why does he say that he may attain resurrection from the dead if that is assured?

Paul reinforces that he has no guarantee by continuing (verse 12) It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it. Again may posses it.

He continues: Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession(verse 13).

And in verse 14 he says: I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus. What is to pursue if he already has assurance of salvation?

Paul was not OSAS and he didn't teach OSAS.

Quote from: Lively Stone on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 09:39:10

Quote from: Selene on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 08:50:23

Quote from: mclees8 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 08:28:33
One more question. Say a man is dieing and has no church near or any Priest to give him absolution truly reaches out to God for his forgivness as also the theif on the cross. Is he not forgiven? You say he will serve in purgatory which you say if he intered into temporal punishment from the earthly church it has no bearing on purgatory.
Why then indulgences?   Why does this not add as 2 and 2 for me.

Is Jesus forgiveness suffiecient or not?  Should not we let God be the Judge? I see no evidence of a purgatory in scripture. 

Of course, the guy is forgiven.  Anyone who reaches out to God asking for forgiveness in sincerity is always forgiven.  Purgatory is for Christians who died suddenly. 

Let's say, example, that a husband got into a bad argument with his wife.  He said some mean things to her and left in a bad temper.  Driving down the road, this Christian is so angry that he didn't see the stop sign and got into a bad car accident, which killed him instantly.  Anger is a sin.  Did he have time to repent of that sin?  No.  Did he have the time to ask God for forgiveness?  No.  Why?  Because he's was killed instantly.  So, is he going straight to hell because he committed the sin of anger and didn't have the opportunity to cool down from his anger and repent?  Do you think that when a Christian experiences anger, he no longer becomes a Christian??  Or perhaps you believe that Christians cannot become angry?   

For us Catholics, this Christian who believes in God will go into Purgatory where he will be purified from the sin of anger.  Then he will enter Heaven.  The Bible says that a person with sin cannot enter Heaven.

This is a false belief based on the misunderstanding of God's grace toward His own. Sins don't keep us from heaven if we have been justified in Christ! It is our position in Christ that gains us heaven no matter what!

The bible says that those who are unrighteous cannot see heaven. The unrighteous are all who have not believed in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord.

Purgatory and the false teaching about indulgences are made up doctrines by and for those who do not have a revelation of God's grace, and so have a sense that the blood of Jesus, His great sacrifice for us is somehow insufficient to clear us of ALL sin---past, present and future. They think we have to be re-saved as we go after each sin---which is a form of spiritual bondage. Yes, we need to repent, but that isn't for salvation again! We need to repent as we go to maintain intimate fellowship with God!

God's grace continually flows out and pours over us, keeping us.

As always Stone you say it right. we are a work in progress and yes Selene Christians can have weak moments of anger, but we see Christ, the perfect Lamb of God who's blood was shed for us cleanses us from all unrighteousness. If the sacrifice was complete and once and for all time then it was finished for all time and satan head has been crushed. Jesus knows the heart of His people. There is no excuse for our weakness but in our weakness He is made strong where by His grace makes us whole.  Glory be to God.

PS   You will not find purgatory in scripture.  If a mans sin is blatant sin in the mist of the church then he must be removed from the church until he repents then he is allowed to come back. This is the only case I know of where the church applies authority over a person. All other matters will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ where our works will be tested. If ones works burn then he will suffer loss. This does not inccur further punishment for his loss will be his be his reward. This is scriptural

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 2 Co 5:10-11

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire    1 Co 3:13-15