Hi Joshua

This article is on the BBC news website on Dec 6 2007.
“Pope Benedict XVI has authorised special indulgences to mark the 150th anniversary of the Virgin Mary’s reputed appearance at Lourdes.
Catholics visiting the site within a year of 8 December will be able to receive an indulgence, which the Church teaches can reduce time in purgatory....

...A plenary indulgence offers full pardon of the temporal punishment (suffering in this life or the next) due to sins already forgiven in confession
Purgatory is a kind of spiritual waiting room - for people who do not go directly to paradise or hell after death - to purify souls of residual sin before they enter heaven…

While some might consider indulgences an outdated concept, great spiritual importance have been assigned to them by Benedict XVI and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. “

Would the Pope authorise indulgences if they were not in accord with official church teaching?

Thanks

Frank

Thank you Frank, your question seems to underscore the point that I was trying to make.

My point was not about indulgences themselves, which quite clearly do correspond with official Catholic teaching, but the sale of indulgences, which Luther originally argued against in his Ninety-five Theses. Galea points to this practice as sacred tradition when this is simply not the case. Were the sale of indulgences part of sacred tradition, then Trent would not have been able to outlaw them.

Galea’s claim that the practice of selling indulgences was an official teaching of the church was an understandable mistake for him to make, but it would have been an easy mistake for him to avoid had he done his research thoroughly.

Thanks Joshua.  When i googled indulgences I came across www.catholic.com/library

It explained the point you made.  However, even the concept of “a plenary indulgence offers full pardon of the temporal punishment (suffering in this life or the next) due to sins already forgiven in confession”, in reward for visiting Lourdes, is not what the Bible teaches, and so is wrong.

But I see that www.catholic.com/library goes into great length to explain why it is right, so I don’t expect you to agree with me.

I also found this revealing statement in the article about the Immaculate Conception, at http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

“The Bible Only?

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

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”

So I can see why we will never agree.  The Church that Christ commissioned to teach his truth is the whole body of all Christians, not just Roman Catholics.  and they are to remain within the limits of the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not include also other additional and contrary ideas of man’s imagination.

“The Bible Only” is indeed the great dividing line.  To go past that line is to be open to many and various and increasing errors and confusions, which I believe are seen in the Roman Catholic teachings which you must cling to, to remain a faithful Roman Catholic. 
Robert ian Williams has based his statements repeatedly on tradition.  Now I see why. 

Is that Catholic website expressing the point of view you would agree with? It seems to be authoritative.  Could you check it for me, please?

Thanks

Frank

Frank,

You’re quite right in suggesting that there’s no point trying to explain indulgences to you. I should point out to you however, that my original post never attempted to deal with indulgences more broadly. The point in my post was quite simply to point out some of the errors in Galea’s book and how it is quite likely that most Protestants will believe that what he is saying is actually official Catholic doctrine when this simply isn’t the case.

Regardless of your thinking on the subject of indulgences, can you agree with me that Galea got the issue of the sale of indulgences wrong?

Frank
Please ‘indulge’ me one more time.

“The Bible Only” is indeed the great dividing line.”

It’s the dividing line because the Bible does not teach sola scriptura! 

Donna

Hi Donna
I agree that the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura explicitly, but it also doesn’t teach the doctrine of the trinity explicitly, yet both are clearly implied and the Church was right to promulgate these by inference from the Bible.

The unique place given to the Old Testament in the New elevates it above all other writings from the pre-Christian era.

And the Church was correct in recognising the unique authority of the New Testament along with the Old.

David I can show you the texts which prove the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but where are the tests that claim that Scripture is our sole authority?..There aren’t any.

David states : “ ....and the Church was right to promulgate these by inference from the Bible”...which Church.?..this was an unknown theory until the time of Wyclif.

“And the Church was correct in recognising the unique authority of the New Testament along with the Old. “.........the Church that did that believed in doctrines such as baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist. etc It also accepted the Septuagint with its extra books....which were rejected by first century Rabbinical Judaism.

Hi Dannii

When we celebrate the eucharist, is the bread and wine a symbol of Jesus, or is it, as Jesus said, his flesh and blood?

Re idolising the bible.  Christianity to me is a religion about Jesus, but I think it could be easy to form a conclusion by observation of some protestants, that they think it is a religion about a book.  It is not about a personal experience and your relationship with Jesus, but on a correct reading of the book.  The book says… etc.  It is probably not a strong point, but it is at least as sound as the often expressed protestant view that the real presence in the eucharist is idolatrous.  It is really just a matter of perspectivism.

You say we must accept as a minimum entry that the bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant.  Lets just look at this in its own terms and ignore the host of issues around the canon and tradition, that is the matter of inspiration.  If the bible is infallible and inerrant, then it must be that in all places.  Using the rule of logical positivism (ie hypotheses can be disproved), we can test that hypothesis.  If we find somewhere that the bible is inconsistent, that is it says two different things, then it can’t be infallible or inerrant.  As an example, which creation myth in genesis do you favour or do you think there is only one?

Regarding all the protestant sects, do you think you are in the right one?

I am not going there on the indulgence thing.  Selling indulgences seems out and out wrong, and the catholic church took the reform broom to the practice.  The other stuff about plenary indulgences is of a school of things that I see may help some people with their faith, but don’t mean much to me, and in any event are not central.  I personally am comfortable with that level of cognitive dissonance.

See my post to Dannii on Sola Scriptura, the argument is pretty simple in my mind, and the concept of biblical inerrancy and infallibility doesn’t even past the first test of internal consistency.

Anyone interested in addressing some of my other points.

PS My thanks to the moderators for facilitating and allowing such a wide ranging discussion.

cheers

John

John Charles Storer - 03 August 2008 03:57 PM

Hi Dannii

When we celebrate the eucharist, is the bread and wine a symbol of Jesus, or is it, as Jesus said, his flesh and blood?

This probably sounds a bit “doh!” but when Jesus said these words, He didn’t cut off his finger or his left ear and hand it about - his flesh and blood were still in one piece, and so obviously he spoke metaphorically of his body as bread and his blood as wine, just as he meant all the other similar sayings (I am the vine, I am the door etc.) metaphorically.  I’m aware that Roman Catholic tradition teaches otherwise; I don’t accept that tradition:  I prefer the natural meaning of the words in context.

As for all the protestant “sects” John (lovely put down word, that:  one of those irregular nouns - I go to a church, you’re part of a sect, he’s in a cult) - none of them are “right” or “wrong”:  they are just human organisations, all of them - even yours.  the church universal (or catholic) is the only divine institution, and it is not coterminous with any of the denominational fellowships, however numerous its earthly adherents may be.

As for your accusation that protestants idolise the bible - I don’t think that is any more justified a slur than it would be for me to suggest that Roman Catholics idolise church tradition.  The bible for us; the magisterium for you - each is our source for how we know Jesus, whom we each worship.  There is much to be praised in Roman Catholic traditions:  but there are some teachings in it which protestant find to be inconsistent with scripture, and accordingly which we do not accept. 

I’m sorry you think that the Bible contradicts itself, John; we protestants consider the Bible the very word of God (the word written); so that an apparent contradiction is really an invitation for us to search deeper into its meaning and understand it better.  A good example is the one you yourself use - the two creation myths - if we look deeper, we see that they are only contradictory if you try to interpret each of them as literal history.

I always understood that Roman Catholics accepted the authority of the bible, but merely reserved to their heirarchy the sole right of interpretation.  Your scorn for scripture seems to contradict that understanding of mine, so I might be mistaken.

I notice that several people have referred to Sola Scriptura / Bible Alone and suggested that this sentiment is not itself a biblical one.

I’m wondering if in fact the notion of Sola Scriptura needs to be read in its context ie ‘Salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures alone to God’s glory alone’.

Thus Sola Scriptura is not claiming that the Bible contains everything there is to know, nor even that it contains the only true message about Salvation. Rather, that Scripture contains the founding & final message about Salvation ie the message by which all other messages must be tested.

Does the Bible point explicitly to the Bible? Yes, but I don’t think this is the critical issue. Does the Bible explain & defend God’s gospel, without which a man cannot be saved? Absolutely!

My difficulty with Catholicism then is not that it includes claims not made in the Bible (eg the acension of Mary) but that it includes claims contradictory with the Bible - principally the claim that Salvation does not come by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but rather through various other means and channels.

I hope this is a helpful contribution/clarification.

Rob Elder

Rob
Have a look at the WYD thread.  I set out what Catholicism teaches about salvation.  Rob the bible does mention our faith saving us, but never the word alone will you find behind it.  It is essentially by grace we are saved.  You may be surprised at what you read.
Kind regards
Donna

No one has shown me a text which says Scripture is the sole authority...the best I’ve had so far is that it is so obvious and that it is implied!

Hi Robert
You won’t get ONE text which in itself teaches the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, either. And many Bible teachings are not succinctly revealed in one single text.

Robert ian Williams - 03 August 2008 08:26 PM

No one has shown me a text which says Scripture is the sole authority...the best I’ve had so far is that it is so obvious and that it is implied!

I think you’ll just have to trust him that it’s obvious and implied. Not to mention the idea that he has the authority to make this claim and that it is not simply a man-made tradition!