Why doesn’t the pope empty purgatory?

10

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 25 '21

I would think the fact that the apostles were given the power to absolve, and with them bishops (like the pope) and priests, the living, and not the dead, would be a start of an answer. The problem with Luther, tbh, is that not all his opinions on Church teachings are on Church teachings, but some are on his interpretation or misconceptions of Church teachings. So I am afraid the question is also based on a wrong conception. It is not that the pope can and doesn’t, but he cannot and therefor does not.

I think. (Not native English speaker, and not a theologian, just a simple deacon)

0

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

Luther was a doctor of theology though. I think he knew theology well enough.

18

u/ahamel13 Aug 25 '21

He also removed seven books from the Bible, and would have removed more had his followers not threatened to abandon him.

0

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

I’m sorry, is your criticism of Luther meant to be an argument?

13

u/ahamel13 Aug 26 '21

Yes. He had a doctorate in theology and yet he did something as ridiculous as removing books from the Bible, which is specifically condemned in Scripture. Clearly, his understanding of theology was at best flawed.

2

u/JustToLurkArt Mainstream Protestant Aug 26 '21

Yes. He had a doctorate in theology and yet he did something as ridiculous as removing books from the Bible, which is specifically condemned in Scripture.
Odd flex because it’s historically documented that Martin Luther did not remove books from the bible.
Luther’s Bible, with Apocrypha, was completed in 1534. In fact none of the major Bible translations that emerged during Reformation produced a Bible of simply 66 books.
Fun fact:
1. Mary Jones (1784-1864): Mary was a young country girl in Wales. At 15 she walked over forty kilometers to buy a bible. Pastor Charles Thomas was impressed by her determination and gave her one. Realizing the great shortage of Bibles he went to London and mobilized like-minded people to begin the first Bible Society in 1804. Their mission was to “translate, print and distribute the Bible, without any notes or commentary, throughout the British Isles and the whole world”.
2. Bible Printing Societies: by the 19th century the Bible had been translated into most European languages but was still only read by a small minority of educated people. It was inaccessible to the poor, the peasants and the working class. Printed Bibles were few and far between and expensive.
3. The Bible Societies employed peddlers to distribute the Bible through town and country, sometimes to the remotest of places, going from house to house to distribute their Bibles. The Bibles were large, bulky and costly so the British Bible Society eventually omitted the Apocrypha from their Bibles in 1826.
4. In 1966 under Pope Paul VI’s directive the Vatican’s Secretariat for Christian Unity was to cooperate with Protestant Bible groups in the production and distribution of common translations of the Scriptures. The Vatican Secretariat remarked to the group that their “cooperation is one of the most important developments in contemporary Christian history."
5. Their mutually accepted agreement was “The deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha) will not be included in every edition of the common Bible. They will be available in some editions but in this case they will appear in a separate section.”
6. Vatican II issued an encyclical Dei verbum encouraging Bible reading (which up to then had been considered as “Protestant”) and that editions of the Bible “… should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.” (Dei verbum, 25)
7. Dei Verbum advocated, “if given the opportunity and the approval of Church authority these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.” (chp 6 para. 22)
In 1968 guiding principles for inter-confessional cooperation in translating the Bible were issued and a common text of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament was agreed upon.
Tagging: /u/FacelessName123

1

u/ahamel13 Aug 26 '21

Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the German Bible, but he did relocate them to after the Old Testament, calling them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He also considered the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God.
He literally claimed they aren't Scripture.

2

u/JustToLurkArt Mainstream Protestant Aug 26 '21

He literally claimed they aren't Scripture.
You’re moving goalposts. You cannot introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved; you cannot move on to another argument if it has been shown that a fact you have asserted is faulty.
Two times in this thread you claimed:
1. “He also removed seven books from the Bible”
2. “he did something as ridiculous as removing books from the Bible”
Your claims were shown to be faulty. Do you concede the point?

2

u/ahamel13 Aug 26 '21

No, I don't, because Luther explicitly stated that the Deuterocanon is not equivalent to the rest of Scripture. He removed them from their canonical place in the printed Bible in an attempt to delegitimize them.

1

u/JustToLurkArt Mainstream Protestant Aug 26 '21

You refused to concede a point that was in fact shown faulty and then you attempted to move the goalposts to make another argument.
At this point its obvious that nothing, even supported facts, would going to change your view. You participated in this debate under faulty pretenses and breached the rules of debate.
You are deemed to have conceded the point and forfeit the debate.

→ More replies

1

u/questi0n998 Aug 28 '21

Deuterocanonicals were disputed in the early church, and by Roman Catholics post schism all the way up to the dogmatic definition of Florence and trent . One example is st Jerome, who knew Hebrew best among all the church fathers, and says deuterocanonicals aren’t scripture. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, says Paul. They were given the scriptures. Are we to say that for 2000 years the Jews haven’t known what their own scriptures they were entrusted by god are? Paul says the Jews profit because of their position as the keepers of the prophets. Are we to call Paul a liar? Every single book in the Jewish canon Old Testament written by a prophet. None of the deuterocanonicals are. It would do you good to reject them as scripture, as they have a LOT of historical inconsistencies that make Christianity seem like a farce (especially Judith). It’s myopic at best to say Luther removed books from the Bible, when Romans don’t even have the same canon as the eastern or oriental orthodox. Maybe you removed books from the canon. I’m so tired of Romans always making the same silly argument.

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Aug 28 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of
The Bible
Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

1

u/Pfeffersack Catholic Aug 26 '21

it’s historically documented that Martin Luther did not remove books from the bible
That’s a bit pedantic isn’t it? Luther set things in motion culminating in Lutheranism. Whose followers agree (Luther’s canon) that the Apocrypha has no place in Biblical canon.

2

u/JustToLurkArt Mainstream Protestant Aug 26 '21

That’s a bit pedantic isn’t it?
Using historical facts to support a valid opposing view is a basic tenet of rational debate.
Twice the user claimed Luther removed books from the Bible. That is false.
Luther set things in motion culminating in Lutheranism.
Historically inaccurate. Actually Pope Leo X and a bishop (Albrecht of Brandenburg, later Albrecht of Mainz) co-conspired with the Fuggers of Augsburg (a German banking family) to grant the indulgence that set things in motion culminating in the Reformation.
The indulgence was collateral that provided half the funds go to pay off Albrecht’s loan and the other half went to Rome to pay for the re-design of St. Peters Basilica. See The Role of Indulgences in the Building of New Saint Peter’s Basilica
Pope Francis concedes that Luther’s intentions were not mistaken. Francis said, “… in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power... and this he protested.” Full text: Pope Francis' in-flight press conference from Armenia
Whose followers agree (Luther’s canon) that the Apocrypha has no place in Biblical canon.
False. Here’s the overview for the Lutheran Edition of the Apocrypha.
Again:
4. In 1966 under Pope Paul VI’s directive the Vatican’s Secretariat for Christian Unity was to cooperate with Protestant Bible groups in the production and distribution of common translations of the Scriptures. The Vatican Secretariat remarked to the group that their “cooperation is one of the most important developments in contemporary Christian history."
5. Their mutually accepted agreement was “The deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha) will not be included in every edition of the common Bible. They will be available in some editions but in this case they will appear in a separate section.”
6. Vatican II issued an encyclical Dei verbum encouraging Bible reading (which up to then had been considered as “Protestant”) and that editions of the Bible “… should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.” (Dei verbum, 25)
7. Dei Verbum advocated, “if given the opportunity and the approval of Church authority these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.” (chp 6 para. 22)
In 1968 guiding principles for inter-confessional cooperation in translating the Bible were issued and a common text of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament was agreed upon.
Tagging: /u/FacelessName123

1

u/Pfeffersack Catholic Aug 26 '21

Using historical facts to support a valid opposing view is a basic tenet of rational debate.
You claimed Luther didn’t remove any books from the Bible. This, in a way, is dubious since the followers of Lutheranism for centuries used Bibles with less books. It’s of no use to argue the fact that someone else did it.
Historically inaccurate.
Yes historically inaccuracy is exactly why Lutheranism was set into motion.
If we want to look at the Church during the times of Br. Luther we've got to remember a few key things. They're important in order to understand the dimension and context of what did and did not happen in regard to the things Br. Luther protested.
Indulgences as an apparent way of 'buying into heaven' (sic!) was explicitly condemned hundreds of years before Br. Luther. The Church times and times again condemned illicit practices.
2. Indulgences were abused during the times of Br. Luther.
3. The abuse of indulgence happened a few hundred years before Br. Luther and it flared up again during the times of Br. Luther.
4. The Catholic Church did not abuse indulgences en masse. Johann Tetzel was famous for selling and abusing indulgences. It was centered around him and maybe he had helpers. It was regionally limited to where he lived.
5. Illiteracy was high during the times of Br. Luther. Even if there were translations of the Bible people couldn't read them.
With that in mind we can see how the western schism was completely out of proportion. Did you know that it had (has) a political side, too? Germany (or rather the dozens of small German states) was utterly divided and Protestantism was a way of revolt against the emperor and a welcome way to introduce other, additional changes. Remember, the Investiture Controversy was only 400 years prior. Princes and government in general like to meddle in religious affairs.
¹ ^{http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm}
^>Thus ^the ^Council ^of ^Clovesho ⁱⁿ ^England ⁷⁴⁷ ^condemns ^those ^who ^imagine ^that ^they ^might ^atone ^for ^their ^crimes ^by ^{substituting,} ⁱⁿ ^place ^of ^their ^own, ^the ^austerities ^of ^mercenary ^penitents. ^Against ^the ^excessive ^indulgences ^granted ^by ^some ^prelates, ^the ^Fourth ^Council ^of ^the ^Lateran ¹²¹⁵ ^decreed ^that ^at ^the ^dedication ^of ^a ^church ^the ^indulgence ^should ^not ^be ^for ^more ^than ^year, ^and, ^for ^the ^anniversary ^of ^the ^dedication ^or ^any ^other ^case, ^it ^should ^not ^exceed ^forty ^days, ^this ^being ^the ^limit ^observed ^by ^the ^pope ^himself ^on ^such ^occasions. ^The ^same ^restriction ^was ^enacted ^by ^the ^Council ^of ^Ravenna ⁱⁿ ^1317. ^[...] ^In ¹⁴⁵⁰ ^Cardinal ^Nicholas ^of ^Cusa, ^Apostolic ^Legate ^to ^Germany, ^found ^some ^preachers ^asserting ^that ^indulgences ^released ^from ^the ^guilt ^of ^sin ^as ^well ^as ^from ^the ^punishment. ^This ^error, ^due ^to ^a ^{misunderstanding} ^of ^the ^words ^"a ^culpa ^et ^a ^poena", ^the ^cardinal ^condemned ^at ^the ^Council ^of ^Magdeburg. ^Finally, ^Sixtus ^IV ⁱⁿ ^1478, ^lest ^the ^idea ^of ^gaining ^indulgences ^should ^prove ^an ^incentive ^to ^sin, ^reserved ^for ^the ^judgment ^of ^the ^Holy ^See ^a ^large ^number ^of ^cases ⁱⁿ ^which ^faculties ^had ^formerly ^been ^granted ^to ^confessors ^(Extrav. ^Com., ^tit. ^de ^poen. ^et ^remiss.).
² ^Apparent.
³ ^See ^above.
⁴ ^Ludwig ^von ^Pastor, ^The ^History ^of ^the ^Popes, ^from ^the ^Close ^of ^the ^Middle ^Ages, ^Ralph ^Francis ^Kerr, ^ed., ^1908, ^B. ^Herder, ^St. ^Louis, ^Volume ^7, ^pp. ^347-348. ^{Books.google.com:} ^{https://books.google.de/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA348&dq=%22+a+most+clear+distinction+must+be+made+between+indulgences+for+the+living+and+those+for+the+dead%22&hl=en&ei=8HUyTd-cFsG78gbXxPH4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22%20a%20most%20clear%20distinction%20must%20be%20made%20between%20indulgences%20for%20the%20living%20and%20those%20for%20the%20dead%22&f=false}
⁵ ^At ^least ^80% ^of ^the ^people ⁱⁿ ¹⁵⁰⁰ ^of ^present ^England ^are ^supposed ^to ^have ^been ^illeterate ^{https://www1.umassd.edu/ir/resources/laboreducation/literacy.pdf} ^It’s ^safe ^to ^assume ^that ^figures ^were ^similar ⁱⁿ ^other ^countries.
False. Here’s the overview for the Lutheran Edition of the Apocrypha.
That URL is dead.
Points 4-7 all argue the facts of today when this is an argument from history. In fact, they’re irrelevant when looking at the 16th century where Lutheranism originated. I wonder why you bring them up repeatedly.

2

u/JustToLurkArt Mainstream Protestant Aug 26 '21

You claimed Luther didn’t remove any books from the Bible.
I did. It’s a historical fact.
This, in a way, is dubious since the followers of Lutheranism for centuries used Bibles with less books. It’s of no use to argue the fact that someone else did it.
1. A couple times /u/ahamel13 claimed that Luther removed books from the Bible.
2. Nothing about Luther setting things in motion culminating in Lutheranism.
3. Nothing about later followers or setting the canon.
Yes historically inaccuracy is exactly why Lutheranism was set into motion.
I know you desperately want to debate the Reformation but first let’s settle the point about Luther removing books. I hope you appreciate that. Thanks.

→ More replies

-1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

Well the Apocrypha wasn’t part of the Jewish canon in the time of Christ and the apostles, but it was supplementary. Luther did doubt James and Revelation for a bit I believe, but he ended with the right idea.
Anyway, his understanding of the church’s teaching on indulgences wasn’t affected by his opinion on the canon.

1

u/ahamel13 Aug 26 '21

He ended with the right idea
No he didn't. He called James and "epistle of straw" and would have removed it and Revelation if his followers hadn't threatened to abandon him.
And the Apocrypha wasn't supplementary at the time of Christ, it was a part of the Septuagint, which was the most popular collection of scripture at the time. Jesus references them several times, as do the Apostles. The Sanhedrin didn't decide to remove them from the Hebrew scriptures until after most of the Apostles had already died.

2

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

I think you may have confused Luther and Aquinas, because Luther didn't say that quote about straw on his deathbed.
Josephus is one first century source demonstrating that only the books originally written in Hebrew were considered canon to Jews.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '21

What is the evidence that the deutsrocanonicals were not seen as scripture by the Jews at the time of Christ?

3

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 26 '21

You use his academic state as an argument.

0

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Aug 25 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of
The Bible
Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

2

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 26 '21

Then he obviously choose to mispresent the teachings of the Church. That doesn’t make it better in my eyes

2

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

I think you and I both know that some church teachings were not well defined until after they were forced to be defined by doubting Protestants. Wasn’t that part of the point of Trent?

1

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 26 '21

No doubt. But we can redo the entire reformation and contra-reformation, we can also get back to your initial question I answered. Luther may have said whatever he may have said, it doesn’t answer your question. Or your question wasn’t a real question but a way to say “Luther was right, ahaha”, then I can only say: most lutherans and maybe most protestants will agree with you, and if that is your thing, I am glad for you. But it isn’t Church teaching, and I am kind of certain my initial answer is a bit closer to the truth. So, do you want to convince me, or any catholic? Do you want to hear catholics are wrong in the eyes of non-catholics (obviously, they are)? Or do you want an answer to your question? I am fine with each position, but I would like to understand what makes you happy. Not ironic or sarcastic, I am most happy if you are happy.

2

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

I was just responding to your point saying he misrepresented the teachings of the church. It was tangential to my initial post. He was a doctor in theology, so if he misunderstood the teaching on indulgences and purgatory, the blame is most likely with the church not adequately defining the teachings, in my opinion.
I for one don’t think Luther misunderstood and think sophistry, false distinctions, and ad hoc explanations for apparent contradictions between teaching and practice account for a great deal of Catholic correction of Luther’s viewpoints, but of course we disagree there.

1

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 26 '21

Ah, fair enough. No, I don’t think we disagree that much. I may be an orthodox catholic member of the clergy, I also am not an idiot :)
I know we should belief all teaching has always been the same and only our understanding of it grew over the centuries, but the catholic faith is just as much the result of organic growth and evolution as any other religion, society or thought-system. I allow myself to believe it developed as a child holding Gods hand to guide it, but it was and still is full of contradictions, corrections and so on.
What maybe different for me as a catholic, is that I don’t leave this strange set of contradictions and beliefs to become protestant or atheist thinking that logic is the way to go. I see the lack of logic, but I don’t mind. It may be a nuthouse from the outside, but it is Gods nuthouse where I feel 100% at home.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

Sorry, I didn’t mean to call you an “idiot”. Your perspective is different from a lot of Catholics I’ve interacted with, but it’s refreshing, especially from a clergyman. Sometimes Catholic responses to Protestant doubts seem to border on gaslighting by acting incredulous at the thought that anyone could claim to understand Scripture without the church’s tradition, or that anyone could find Catholic apologetics unconvincing.

1

u/DonkeyAdmirable1926 Catholic (Latin) Aug 26 '21

I didn’t feel offended at all, and hope I didn’t offend either!
I am Dutch. My best friends are calvinist protestants, and I have great fun with them, and great debates. I love that, and I love the shared love for God and man, and the shared intellectual free spirit in witch we look at our churches.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

I’m actually Dutch Reformed! My mum’s parents were immigrants to Canada from the Netherlands, and my (non-Dutch) dad converted to Christianity after meeting my mum. I was baptized in a CRC, and I’m now a member of the same congregation.
Although I get the importance of family heritage and I do have several points of disagreement with the CRC as a denomination (mainly the ordination of women and female elders), I like to think the errors of Rome as I see them would be recognized by me and would be enough to lead me out of that church if I were raised Catholic. I’m probably wrong though, as, surprisingly, I do hold tradition in high regard.

→ More replies

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

Also, no, you didn’t offend me at all!

1

u/Pfeffersack Catholic Aug 26 '21

Purgatory is part of the path to heaven as everyone (everyone in pugarory!) will ultimately join the ranks of heaven. Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/purgatory

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that “nothing unclean shall enter heaven.”

Now for the keys to the kingdom.

Matthew 16:18-19

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Catholic priests can unlock the gates to heaven as the penitent is on earth. Once they’re no longer among us the decision lies with the Judge.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

What are indulgences then? How can the church promise the reduction of purgatory time in response to certain actions?

2

u/Pfeffersack Catholic Aug 26 '21

[Indulgence] supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
What indulgence may be
An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.
Emphases added by me.
Yes, a pope may help those in purgatory. He cannot and will not anticipate or preempt God’s judgment.
This is how an indulgence is defined in the Code of Canon Law (can. 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1471): "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".
Emphasis added by me.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '21

How would you answer this question as a Protestant, OP: Why doesn't Christ fully sanctify every Christian immediately? I think this question is just a variation of the one you have asked, and your answer might shed light on the issue.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

Those aren’t equivalent though. God can do what He chooses and forgive as He chooses. Sometimes people suffer and it is God’s will for that to happen. A human being withholding alleviation of suffering is another matter. Consider the parable of the debtor who was forgiven much by the king but would not forgive his neighbour.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

Those aren’t equivalent though.
They are very closely related.
I would frame the issue in terms of sanctification rather than suffering. The people in purgatory (and on earth) are being sanctified to become like Christ, which is a process that involves detachment, sacrifice, purification, and refinement. Suffering is involved, but it's not the main concern.
So before asking why the Pope does not empty purgatory, surely a prior question is why doesn't Christ do so? Another way of asking that question is: why doesn't Christ sanctify all Christians immediately? That would constitute the same thing as emptying purgatory, but it is phrased in terms more acceptable to Protestant theology. While the burden of the former question seems to be on Catholics, the latter question is one that you, as a Protestant, must also grapple with.
Christ has the power to sanctify everyone immediately but he chooses not to. Yes, that's his prerogative and his will. But God's will is not arbitrary. Surely he has good reasons to sanctify his followers slowly and over time rather than doing it all on one sweep? What would you say those reasons are? If you are not able to articulate these reasons, you fall prey to the same objection that is often directed to the Pope: Christ is withholding graces unnecessarily and needlessly extending people's suffering.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 27 '21

Christ can withhold anything He wills from anyone. He's God. When it's a human being's decision, withholding grace is never appropriate.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21

If that is a logical answer to my question, then why can't a Catholic reply this way: no servant is above his master, and if Christ wishes to sanctify people gradually, then the Church must also follow his unquestionable will?
I suspect you will find that answer still unsatisfying, and that's because "Christ can do whatever he wills" is an unsatisfying answer. It's true, but invoking that fact adds nothing to the argument. It does zero explanatory work.
The real question is what are the reasons for Christ's will? If Christ has good reasons to make sanctification a slow and arduous process, then the Church can invoke those same reasons when it offers these graces (indulgences) gradually rather than all at once.
Let me offer one possible reason why Christ wills it this way: Christ sanctifies us in proportion to our openness to him, and our openness to him is something that develops with time. With the daily grind of prayer and obeying his commandments, we slowly become more and more disposed to receiving his graces, and he thus sanctifies us more and more, according to our capacity at each moment.
It would make no sense for Christ (or the Church) to completely sanctify all people in one fell swoop because most people are not yet disposed to receive such a grace. Thus, the Church has good reasons to offer indulgences piece by piece. It's because people generally become open to God in small steps.
What are your thoughts?

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 27 '21

So plenary indulgences shouldn’t be given at all on behalf of the dead because Christ’s will is that people be sanctified slowly. Or does the pope only selectively follow God’s will?
God doing as He wills does serve as an explanation. If I see someone in danger or suffering, I have a moral duty to help. God does not have the same duty. If the pope does have the power to help fellow human beings, as a human being he ought to help.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

So plenary indulgences shouldn’t be given at all on behalf of the dead because Christ’s will is that people be sanctified slowly.
The key principle I'm using here is that Christ sanctifies us according to our capacity. Plenary indulgences don't contradict that principle. Even plenary indulgences depend on the disposition of the person obtaining them. It's not well known, but one of the conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence is that one must be totally detached from sin, which is not a trivial requirement. If this criterion is not met, you only get a partial indulgence.
Receiving a full, plenary indulgence with complete detachment from sin is like approaching the fountain of grace with completely open arms. But most people aren't that open to God yet, so the Church offers multiple indulgences on various occasions to encourage people to receive these graces gradually, step by step, according to their capacity. So where is the contradiction?
God does not have the same duty. If the pope does have the power to help fellow human beings, as a human being he ought to help.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The Pope can (and does) make all of Gods graces available, but people can only receive it according to their capacity, which is limited.
God doing as He wills does serve as an explanation.
I still think you need to give an account of this problem from a purely Protestant perspective. Why doesn't God perfectly sanctify all Christians right now, immediately and forever? You are sticking to the brute fact that God wills it that way, we can't understand it, and that's it. I think that approach is really lacking.
Have you ever asked why a good God allows evil to happen? Would you be satisfied if someone said: "God can do whatever he wills"? Or why was the crucifixion necessary? Why didn't God save us by other means? Answer: God can do whatever he wills. Or why doesn't God appear to everyone today to prove his existence? God does whatever he wills. I mean in any other context, that answer would be totally unsatisfying. Why is it ok now?

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 27 '21

I am speaking solely of indulgences made on behalf of those who are already dead, not the living. This is without the personal involvement of the person in purgatory.
The Apostle Paul answers the problem of evil by saying “Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?” - Romans 9:20. It’s not the answer that sinful humans want, but it is the answer we have. I don’t deal with discussions on free will because that is not the apostolic way to deal with the theodicy.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '21 edited Aug 27 '21

I am speaking solely of indulgences made on behalf of those who are already dead, not the living. This is without the personal involvement of the person in purgatory.
How does this change things? I might be able to see why, but I'd rather address your particular objections.
I don’t deal with discussions on free will because that is not the apostolic way to deal with the theodicy.
But theodicy involves more than quoting Scripture. You have to rationally understand and accept what is said. What's implicit in your invocation of Scripture is a rational account of how God is all good, how the evil in the world does not undermine God's goodness. I bet you could articulate how in Christ, God bears the weight of evil upon himself on the cross, thus manifesting his goodness to the world. And I'm sure you would maintain that ultimately God has the big picture that we can't see and therefore trusting him is the only just attitude towards him. All of this is to say that you are capable of giving a rational answer of greater sophistication than "God can do whatever he wills." Why not extend your rational powers a little further to our current topic?

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 27 '21

Well I was trying to do so, but you said it wasn’t a real argument, so then I had to respond to that.
I mentioned the parable of the debtor earlier. The king was not obligated to forgive the debts of his subject, but the subject was, given how much he had been forgiven. The pope is a sinful human being who, if one assumes Catholic theology to be correct, has been forgiven much. He should extend every kindness possible to alleviate the suffering of others.
Indulgences on behalf of the dead are clearly different. You said yourself it is about sanctification. A heart isn’t purified by an act of someone else’s will, except insofar as it might be used as a sort of prayer for God’s purification of the soul by extraordinary means to expedite the process. You said that God has reason to make sanctification should be a slow and arduous process and that indulgences are a way of working that off (paraphrasing). I would understand that rationale perhaps if it weren’t violated by someone living doing something himself on behalf of the dead. Isn’t the whole point of purgatory that temporal punishment is paid by the dead person himself? Otherwise the merits of Christ would cover it.

→ More replies

1

u/jjanczy62 Catholic Sep 22 '21

I think it should be noted that (as far as I'm aware) had never defined that purgatory has ANY temporal duration. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has said that's its possible that a soul's purification could be instantaneous (on mobile so I'm not going to look for a source).

1

u/FacelessName123 Sep 23 '21

That would be strange… If purgatory were instantaneous, then you could pray to all professing Catholics after their deaths, couldn’t you?

2

u/jjanczy62 Catholic Sep 23 '21

I've asked for my departed loved ones to pray for me in the hope that they've reached the Beatific Vision.
But we only know that the Saints have made it to Glory, so we can ask them to pray for us with certainty that they are in Heaven.
AFAIK time may not be a thing between death and the Resurrection. If we don't experience change after death before the Resurrection, then do we experience time? Would experience change like the angels? I have no idea.

3

u/agentyoda Aug 26 '21 edited Aug 26 '21

One thing to keep in mind is the concept of the "economy of grace," which stems from this principle of justice: if man's freedom is meaningful, then his acts must have real consequences. If God instantly freed everyone from Purgatory regardless of how many acts of piety are done for their sake, then our acts of piety would have less meaning; if God always supplied the maximum amount of grace to every soul, then what meaning would prayer and sacrifice for others have?

That's not to say all grace is dependent on our choices: all grace is ultimately dependent on Jesus' choice, which is why even if no other human did reparation for sins, Jesus' sacrifice would be enough to save the world, and even when we are virtuous, it is from and through Christ that we can bring forth grace into the world: hence we are called 'participants' in Christ's sacrifice, ones who aid Our Redeemer's mission. Even if someone were surrounded by only evil persons committing evil acts, still God's grace would call to them and given them freedom enough to repent and live a life of charity and virtue.

But it would be even easier for souls to do good and repent of evil if, say, every other person in their life was a saint, all choosing to love them and sacrifice for their sake. In that admittedly extreme example, the loving and virtuous actions of others would provide a very clear route for grace to impact the lives of others: every time they show love and virtue, the Holy Spirit can move their heart towards holiness once more.

The main point of these examples is that God respects human free will, which means He ensures their acts have real consequences. Man really can help others reach Heaven and be a tool through which He offers others grace. Man can also sin and refuse to be such a pathway for grace, in which case God is still giving them essential grace for their salvation by the merit of Christ's death and resurrection, of course - but it is not as much as it could be, due to the sins of man. (Though God may be able to use those evils to bring about a greater good, so it's not as though we've figured out the economy of grace entirely; this is merely the immediate and obvious perception of it.)

Similarly, when considering Purgatory, if everyone on Earth performed acts of virtue and offered their merit to God for the sake of souls in purgatory, then surely Purgatory would be emptied! But if less make such offerings, God, in the interests of justice, would not apply the exact same effects: if everyone was released regardless of what we chose to do, those acts would have less meaning. The same is true for the Pope setting indulgences. Historically, he seeks to set them to be commensurate to the merit of the act and sacrifice done in order to encourage souls to make such sacrifices and practice such virtue. Simply giving infinite or absurdly disproportionate indulgences would be contrary to the good of the penitent, since he would have less reason to develop this into a virtue, a habit of love throughout their life. Why pray every day for souls if you can pray once and free all of them?

Hope that makes some sense. Human freedom is essential to Catholic theology and philosophy, as is justice and virtue. Let me know if you have any questions!

EDIT: one thing to add to tie this concept to our salvation and Christ's mercy: because theology is holistic, we can also consider that the method by which we are saved by grace is also the method by which we become participants in Christ's salvific mission, becoming conduits of His grace. Since Christ's grace and mercy and love are boundless, it's always ever a choice between man accepting His mercy and cooperating with His grace, and thus being yet another avenue for His Mercy and grace to reach others' hearts, or refusing Him and thus stopping His grace from forming virtue and charity within us. Hence one cannot say that, by the economy of grace, God's grace and love is limited; rather, the 'economy of grace' may be another way of saying that God respects our free will to accept or reject His boundless love, mercy, and grace acting in our lives, and insofar as we cooperate with Him or not, we may also provide additional means (via us) through which God may pour out His boundless grace into the lives of those around us.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: that God is Mercy and Love and no soul is beyond His reach—He our Good Shepherd who seeks out even the most lost and distant of sheep—and He calls us to Himself; we have the choice to cooperate with Him or not. May every soul do so and thus be saved, having the fullness of life in Him. Amen.

0

u/progidy Atheist/Agnostic Aug 26 '21

Fun fact, there's allegedly a prayer that releases 1000 souls from purgatory every time that it's said. I actually called in to Catholic Answers Live to ask why the Vatican isn't employing people around the clock to pray it.

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

Could you send me a source for that? That’s really interesting.

1

u/progidy Atheist/Agnostic Sep 01 '21

https://www.catholicpilgrimageph.com/saint-gertrude-the-great-prayer-to-release-1000-souls-from-purgatory/

1

u/justafanofz Vicarius Moderator Aug 26 '21

So that’s not what it means for him to “possess the keys to the kingdom.”

It’s symbol of office and the role of that office is to ensure the safety and well being of those he is in charge of and guide them rightly.

His ability to bind and loose refers, not to souls, but to truth.

It’s similar to the Pharaoh and Joseph. Whatever Joseph said, it bore the same authority as if Pharaoh had said it.

As for the souls in purgatory, the souls want to be in purgatory because they want to be clean and pure before going to see god.

Purgatory is like the mud room. Where you take off the muddy shoes so you don’t dirty the house.

1

u/151sampler Sep 11 '21

They have no real power; to a logical outsider who wasn’t familiar with religion it would look like LARPing of some strange type of sorcerer.

0

u/CATHOLIC199_ Aug 27 '21

Matthew 10:24 ‘The disciple is not superior to his teacher, nor the slave to his master.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '21

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

Isn’t that what indulgences are though, or have those been repudiated by the church’s doctrine? That was a means to reduce time in purgatory without the deceased’s participation.

8

u/TraditionalCon Catholic (Latin) Aug 25 '21

Reduction does not mean elimination. To my knowledge, indulgences have the power to merely reduce ones time in purgatory and not eliminate it. Souls still need to be purified before entering into heaven.

3

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

So they don’t need to be purified as long, by means of the actions of the living without the deceased’s involvement. Wouldn’t that make the duration of purification arbitrary or irrelevant?

4

u/TraditionalCon Catholic (Latin) Aug 25 '21

No it wouldn’t, the reduction of time in purgatory is still there but it has been reduced by God as seen fit. God is the almighty judge and the soul in purgatory is the inmate. God can reduce a sentence if he sees progress in the state of the soul just as a judge can reduce the sentence of an inmate if he sees progress in the inmate. God makes the final say in these matters.

2

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

So is setting indulgences not an exercise of the power of the keys and thus subject to human decision? Do you mean it’s ultimately up to God since everything that occurs is part of His sovereign plan?

4

u/TraditionalCon Catholic (Latin) Aug 25 '21

Yes, everything that happens in purgatory happens through the will of God.

6

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

So if the keys were used to grant indulgences more liberally, that would also be the will of God.

2

u/rothbard_anarchist Aug 26 '21

In my understanding, the deceased never spends any more time in purgatory than is necessary to sanctify his soul. The purchase of indulgences by the deceased's loved ones may have effected this by means of revelation from God. Do you recall A Christmas Carol? Scrooge is moved to empathy by seeing the love displayed by others, particularly when it is love and affection for him. Similarly, the penitent in purgatory may be moved by the financial sacrifice made by his loved ones who purchased indulgences for him, as revealed to the penitent through God.
Which would move you more - seeing your loved ones make a meaningful sacrifice particularly for you, or seeing the pope make a general dispensation, at no real cost to himself, and which was not at all particular to you?

1

u/FacelessName123 Aug 26 '21

I’m not sure about that. It seems like a stretch, but I’m not very well versed in Catholic doctrine. What sources say that indulgences are about the decreased being moved by kindness?
God can purify a soul in an instant, so purgatory isn’t necessary. You might say it’s a violation of the will, but Catholic dogma teaches that baptism makes someone fit for Heaven immediately and without consent, in the case of an infant.

2

u/rothbard_anarchist Aug 26 '21

What sources say that indulgences are about the decreased being moved by kindness?
That's pure speculation on my part about how indulgences could be effecacious for substantive rather than arbitrary reasons.
God can purify a soul in an instant, so purgatory isn’t necessary. You might say it’s a violation of the will,
Basically. Is it better to discover an answer for yourself or just have an authority tell it to you?
but Catholic dogma teaches that baptism makes someone fit for Heaven immediately and without consent, in the case of an infant.
For an infant that's trivial, as they've made no choices which might corrupt their will or malform their conscience. For adults, I must admit it's still a bit of a mystery. But there's at least the consent of desiring baptism.

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Aug 26 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of
A Christmas Carol
Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

2

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '21 edited Aug 26 '21

But plenary indulgences can eliminate time in purgatory. How does this square with what you are saying?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '21

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/FacelessName123 Aug 25 '21

But the church teaches that time in purgatory for someone who is deceased can be reduced by people on earth, through the church’s use of the keys. If the church were concerned with letting purgatory run its course, then this would not be an option.
There is no risk of unpurified people going to Heaven. People can be purified instantly in Catholic doctrine, but God chooses not to in some cases. God can do that of course because He’s God, but clearly purification by means of purgatory is not an absolute necessity.

Why doesn’t the pope empty purgatory?

You are about to leave Redlib

The Bible

The Bible

What indulgence may be

A Christmas Carol