[Sca-cooks] lent, wine, indulgences, de Nola

[Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach Laura C. Minnick:
>At 05:18 PM 1/20/2004, you wrote:
>
>>--- "Laura C. Minnick" <lcm at efn.org> wrote:
>>>  On indulgences- you can't get an indulgence for
>>>  something you haven't done
>>>  yet- it is only for sins already committed. You
>>>  must confess the sin and be
>>>  forgiven- it is the punishment that you are
>>>  avoiding by the indulgence.
>>>  *and* it can only be done for venial sins, not
>>>  mortal. What an indulgence
>>>  does essentially is to reduce your punishment
>>>  in purgatory- gets you 'time
>>>  off for good behavior' :-)
>>>
>>>  Thus endeth the lesson. :-)
>>>
>>>  'Lainie
>>
>>Well that was the original intent.  But during
>>the Reformation, indulgences _were_ being sold
>>for future sins, sometimes unspecified future
>>sins, if you paid enough money.  They were also
>>selling indulgences for dead relatives, so they
>>could escape purgatory.  This whole subject was
>>one of the things that ticked Martin Luther off
>>and lead eventually to the Reformation.
>
>Not quite. It involves some hair-splitting though (and sounds 
>uncomfortably like a certain former president). There is a 
>remarkably wonderful website 
>at:http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm that gives the 
>straight skinny on indulgences. In particular, it has this to say 
>(about 3/4 or the way down):
>
>
>Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
>
>The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of 
>granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope 
>Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or 
>other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act 
>proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from 
>indulgences.
>
>Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
>
>One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal around 
>indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his 
>heterodoxy, involved alms- indulgences in which the giving of alms 
>to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to 
>grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. 
>The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "[I]t is easy to see how abuses 
>crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being 
>made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold 
>a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these 
>purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or 
>to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right 
>motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
>
>There is quite a bit more. Suffice it to say, there were abuses. 
>There still are, for other things. But the presence of abuses does 
>not negate the official doctrinal stance.
>
>I'd have more interesting stuff, however the books I would be 
>looking for are... 180 miles away. As usual. *poo*

Funny, this is right after a private discussion I recently had about 
how the Catholic Church does not, in fact, engage in, countenance, or 
encourage the worship of saints. But obviously, if someone thinks 
something is true, then it is true. So all the rest of that stuff 
above must be true, too... ;-)

Adamantius