edited by V. Marchi
Pope John Paul II defined indulgences as "a comprehensive card of authentic catholicity" (1) . As a "constitutive element" and source, in the course of history, of great discussions and controversies (just think of Luther's 95 theses and the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation, which had as its trigger the scandalous trade in indulgences favored by the Church of Rome ), it is necessary to talk about it before taking an overall look at the Catholic Jubilee .
To understand indulgences well, one must start from the Catholic "sacrament" to which they are closely connected: that of "penance" or "reconciliation". It is true that the basic purpose of the Gospel is undoubtedly that of the reconciliation of man with God, through the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal salvation. Catholicism, however, has greatly changed and "personalized" the path of salvation, creating its own, parallel and quite particular one, by introducing a series of elements unknown to the simplicity of Christ's message.
Let us then take a look at Catholic doctrine, summarizing what is obtained from some official Catholic sources (the Bull Incarnationis mysterium of 1998;of 1993; the 1995 Catechism for adults ; the Code of Canon Law ; the Subsidy The gift of indulgence , edited by the National Committee for the Great Jubilee of 2000, published this year).
The Catholic doctrine on reconciliation
In the schematization we will insert, point by point, brief observations on the inconsistency of these teachings with respect to the Gospel.
The Catholic Church teaches that for sins committed after baptism the sacrament of Reconciliation is provided, according to which, to obtain absolution, the faithful must go through the acts of: repentance, confession to the Catholic priest (the only one in able to forgive in the name of Christ), and penances (consisting of prayers, works of charity, renunciations, pilgrimages, etc.).
But, first of all, it is well known that the New Testament completely ignores the clergy / laity distinction within the Christian people. Likewise, it ignores the idea of reconciliation as a "sacrament" and that of the confession of sins addressed to a special category of people who have the power to administer forgiveness on behalf of God.
The conception according to which prayers, forgiveness, charitable works and other acts of piety - which for the Gospel are joyful and spontaneous manifestations of love - can be conceived as "penances", that is, in practice, punishments and penalties, even if in view of a spiritual purification!According to the Catholic Church, absolution reconciles the penitent with God and with the church, extinguishing: guilt ; the eternal punishment deserved for mortal sins; finally, only in part, the temporal punishments that follow every sin, even venial. It seems really strange, however, that the absolution of a priest has the power to free from eternal punishment, but not entirely from temporal punishment, which, compared to the first, are infinitely lower. Furthermore, the distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins is arbitrary, it is not present in the Gospel.
According to the Catholic Church, by temporal punishments we mean those that have a limited duration and that are consequences of sin, consequences that remain even after the forgiveness of guilt. Until these pains are fully expiated, full communion with God and with brothers is not possible. The cancellation of the temporal penalties can take place during the life of the believer and / or after his death in purgatory (since those who die not yet perfectly purified go to purgatory). Indulgences are grafted on this point .
Before talking about it, however, let us note that in the New Testament there is no doctrine of a "temporal" penalty to be served before being readmitted to divine and ecclesial communion.
Even less traceable is the idea of penalties to be served after physical death by substantially saved people (since - again according to Catholicism - all the inhabitants of purgatory sooner or later reach paradise).
On the other hand, the Gospel never speaks of purgatory , but always and only either of eternal punishment or eternal salvation, without ever indicating a "third way" (in particular, read the passages of Matthew 25:46 and Luke 16 : 19 ff.) (2) .
Finally, how not to be stunned by the concept of people considered saved, but who still have to suffer enormous sufferings (Catholicism teaches that those in Purgatory are far superior to earthly ones!) After this life, before reaching God?So let's see what Catholic indulgences consist of, which are acquired by carrying out certain works of piety (more or less consistent, according to the gravity of the sin committed) and can be plenary , when they cancel all the penalties due for sins committed until benefits (so that they would lead directly to heaven the soul that at that moment was separated from the body), or partial, when they only remit part of the penis. Even for those who have already passed away and are in Purgatory, the Roman Catholic Church dispenses early liberations from the penalties to which they are subjected, drawing on the spiritual "treasure" of those who, in life, have acquired "superabundant" merits, that is, they have made well more than it served for their personal salvation: it is Christ and then Mary and all the Catholic "saints", whose merits the faithful in life can draw on through suffrages for the deceased (3) . What the single person fails to do is filled, in practice, by the "more" merits of others,
Of course, the Holy Scriptures teach that man cannot save himself from himself, and for this reason Jesus himself sacrificed himself in his place, giving him his immeasurable merits: this is why Jesus came among us, died, rose and ascended. to heaven, to be the only mediator between God and men and our defense advocate (read, among others, passages like John 3: 16-18; Ephesians 2: 4-10; Colossians 1: 8-23; 1 Timothy 2: 3-6; Hebrews 7: 26-28, 10: 16-18; 1 John 2: 1-2).
As we read in chapter 9 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus Christ paid the price of sin once and for all, for those who believe in Him. the work of the Messiah alone is not sufficient and necessary: and this is the clearest antithesis that there can be with the Gospel!
Furthermore, how would the Catholic Church manage to dispose of this patrimony? Where is there in the Gospel even the slightest indication in this sense (4) ? Where ever a hint of the possibility, for the living, of beneficially influencing the fate of the deceased, with the aim of making them reach Paradise more quickly (5)? And what will become of those poor people who have no one who offers "suffrage" (an expression which means "help": offerings, Eucharistic rites, prayers, etc.) in their favor? Who has the most friends is favored?
Again, another total antithesis with the Gospel: how is it possible that a person's merit passes to another person? The Word of God always and only speaks of personal responsibility (see for example: Psalm 49: 7, 62:12; Ezekiel 18:30, 33:20; Matthew 16:27, 25:31 ff .; Acts 10:34 ; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 2:23, 20:12).
How is it conceivable, then, that simple men (not Jesus Christ) have acquired with their works such great merits, that they can save themselves and also be able to save others, when Scripture teaches that no one will ever be able to do enough even for himself, and that can we be saved, therefore, only by the grace of Christ, who fills the holes left by every man, without exception? (see, for example: Matthew 19:17; Romans 3: 23-24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 2: 9; 2 Timothy 1: 9; Titus 3: 5) (6) .
Not to mention the fact that the ecclesiastical judgment on the so-called "saints" (a category that, understood in the Catholic way, does not appear in the Gospel) is absurd, because it presupposes knowing that some people are already saved, and thus (like when one judges that someone is in Purgatory) one replaces the judgment of God (7) .
Other historical notes and other reflections
At the Council of Clermont in 1095 AD, proclaiming the first crusade, Pope Urban II wrote an appeal to the people; in it, among other things, it said:
"I insistently urge you, indeed it is not I who do it but the Lord, so that you may persuade everyone, of whatever order (knights and infantry, rich and poor), with continuous incitements, as heralds of Christ, so that they immediately rush to help Christians to sweep from our lands that wicked race [the Turks]. I tell the present and I command the absent, but it is God who wills it. it will be the immediate remission of sins: and this I agree to those who depart, by the authority that God confers on me. "
It was the first great plenary indulgence. Later it was also granted, to those who did not want or could not leave for the Holy Land, to gain (8) the indulgence through a sum of money. The historian L. Gatto notes: "For those who had gone to Jerusalem for devotion and with the aim of freeing the Church of God, the journey would therefore have had the value of penance, and then began to be repeated everywhere, on the basis of what affirmed by the Pontiff, "God wills it!" " (9) . Massacres and violence of unprecedented scope were thus justified, fomented and "sanctified" by the supreme Catholic authorities, in the name of their presumed divine authority, promising the perpetrators of the brutal massacres liberation from all present and future punishments, and therefore the
But now, let us ask ourselves: how is it possible that many popes, in past centuries, expressing themselves in an official and solemn way, have pushed the faithful towards murder and other crimes, promising them eternal salvation, while today the pope no longer approves those same acts, judging them not in conformity with the Gospel? The many people who at that time followed the Roman Catholic Church, then, were they saved by doing brutality in the name of God, or are they damned and owe their damnation to the bad advice of the popes? In both cases, the situation seems truly dramatic and unsustainable, and undermines the alleged authority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy (10)yesterday and today. Is it possible that what God "wanted" centuries ago is so different from what he "wants" today? Does God Want or Doesn't He Want the Crusades? Does he want or does he not want indulgences? Does he want or does he not want the Jubilee? Who can guarantee us that the Catholic Church in the future will not change its mind on points now considered established, just as it has recently changed its opinion on issues that were once passed for divine certainties?
On the other hand, the Roman church itself admits that doctrines such as that of indulgences did not exist in early Christianity and that they have had slow but fundamental evolutions and modifications over the centuries, becoming more specific the more we moved away from the Gospel (11). Thus, the idea of the "treasure of the Catholic Church" (defined by a Catholic author as "a kind of immense bank account" to be used in case of need (12) ) did not emerge until the 12th century AD! After the fall of St. John of Acre (1291) and the end of the Crusades, the plenary indulgence found its full place in the Jubilee (13) (the first, as we shall see, dates back to 1300: here too we are very far from evangelical revelation).
We must also note that, especially in the past, the Roman Catholic Church has widely spread and exploited the most sinister abuses of indulgences (when a kind of onerous "tax" was paid, according to real official rates, to obtain the forgiveness of sins without need for more) and has enriched itself by building the same "sacred places" in which the faithful are made to go on pilgrimage today to buy with the proceeds deriving from it (a very important entry point of papal finances!) , again, indulgences (the same basilica of St. Peter was completed thanks to the proceeds from the shameful sale of indulgences in the sixteenth century). Other than "repentance": if there was true repentance for the scandals of the past,
In 1967 Paul VI (in the Indulgentiarum doctrina ) affirmed that "the doctrine and use of indulgences, which have been in force for many centuries in the Catholic Church, have a solid foundation in divine revelation". But where is the biblical evidence? The Subsidy The gift of indulgence , on p. 11, affirms that "the indulgence is not [...] of divine origin, but of ecclesiastical origin. It, in fact, arose from an ancient penitential practice ..." (and, in fact, on page 16 it is added that "the first official systematic document of the pontifical magisterium on the doctrine of indulgences […] is linked to the occasion of the proclamation of the Jubilee of 1350 ").
The church of Rome continues to arrogate to itself the right to do and undo in defiance of the Gospel, which, instead, claims to be a perfectly complete revelation and which has warned against bringing even the slightest change to the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles. (see, for example: John 16:13; Galatians 1: 6-9; 2 Peter 1: 3; Jude v. 3; Revelation 22: 18-19). Gospel or Catholic traditions? Christianity or Catholicism?
NOTE
1. John Paul II, To the penitentiaries of the four patriarchal basilicas of Rome , January 30, 1981. Let us remember that indulgence derives from "indulgere", that is "to show oneself benevolent; to bestow a gift or a forgiveness". The current position of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue is contained in the Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina of Paul VI (1967) and is synthetically expressed by the documents indicated at the end of this paragraph.
The papal definition of indulgence is found in Canon Law, in canons 992-997. In particular: "Indulgence is the remission of the temporal penalty for sins, already remitted as regards the guilt, which the faithful, duly disposed and under certain conditions, acquires through the intervention of the [Catholic] Church, which, as minister of redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasure of the satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints "(can. 992).
According to the Catholic catechism," Through indulgences the faithful can obtain for themselves, and also for the souls in Purgatory, the remission of temporal penalties, consequences of sins "(1498; see also 1475-1479).
2. The same Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that the doctrine on Purgatory was defined only in the Councils of Florence (15th century) and Trent (16th century); consistently, no Biblical Dictionary contains the entry Purgatory or other correspondents. As the historian J. Le Goff wrote in The Birth of Purgatory : "Until the end of the twelfth century the word purgatorium does not exist as a noun. Purgatory does not exist"; and again: "For the history of Purgatory, the best theologian is Dante"; and not the Bible, we add! Yet, according to the Council of Trent (still in force for these as well as for many other aspects), whoever denies Purgatory and the value of indulgences must be excommunicated!
3. The suffrages for the dead were affirmed after the indulgences for the living. The first indulgence for the dead was granted in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV, although this had already been done a few times, but not by the pope.
4. Again Le Goff, on the other hand (see note 2), noted, with regard to Purgatory and indulgences: "And for the [Catholic] Church, as an instrument of power! It affirms its own (partial) right over souls in Purgatory as members of the militant church, pushing the ecclesiastical forum forward to the detriment of the forum of God, which nevertheless holds the justice of the afterlife. Spiritual power, but also simply [...] financial profit ".
5. The Catholic authorities cite only one biblical passage in this regard, taken from the second book of Maccabees, chap. 12, verses 32-45. But there are two big buts: first of all, this book, officially inserted (together with other books) in the Old Testament by the Council of Trent in 1546, has never been part of the Hebrew Bible (and, in fact, neither Jews, nor Protestants, nor Orthodox recognize it as inspired by God; just read the ending of 2 Maccabees 15: 37-39…); moreover, if it is true that the protagonists of that context wanted to make a sacrifice for the benefit of their deceased companions, it is also true that this practice was never approved by either the Jews or the early Christians, and that the deceased in question, having guilty of having stolen pagan idols, according to Catholic doctrine they died in mortal sin, and therefore must be in Hell. So if these steps prove anything, they prove that it is possible to pray for people who are in Hell, and not for those in Purgatory. Of course, this is also wrong.
6. Let it be clear that we do not want to diminish the value of action by the Christian (without works, faith is an empty shell: James 2:26), but only to point out that, according to the Gospel, no one can work to the point of conquering salvation for oneself and - much less - for others: all men die in defect before God; the difference is that some are in loving and obedient fellowship with the Lord, and are therefore pardoned and saved, and others are not.
7. Just think of the fact that, for example, according to the Apostle Paul, not even a person who sacrifices his life for faith can we say for sure that he will be saved, because in God's judgment he could have lacked charity in his heart. (read 1 Corinthians 13: 1-3).
8. This is the technical term used by the Code of Canon Law; literally, it means "to take for profit"; in the specific case, "to achieve through godly practices".
9. The Crusades , Newton Compton, 1994, p. 18.
10. We recall, in fact, that the popes consider themselves infallible ex cathedra , that is, divinely assisted and therefore without the possibility of error when defining doctrines relating to the magisterium (faith, ecclesiastical customs, civil morality, canonization of saints, etc.).
11. See for example the Catechism of the Catholic Church , no. 1447: "Over the centuries the concrete form, according to which the [Catholic] Church has exercised this power received from the Lord, has undergone many variations…."; it is then admitted that only from the seventh century are the first forms of what will gradually become the current doctrine of penance appear. Referring to the thirteenth century, A. Gelardi, author of Verso il giubileo , (EDB, 1996) states on page 10 that "from this moment the practice of indulgences would have had a development hitherto unknown"; on p. 18, then, underlines how "originally the term" indulgence "
12. O. Battaglia, The Jubilee of 2000 , Ed. Porziuncola, 1996, p. 27.
13. "In its theological essence the Jubilee is therefore a solemn plenary indulgence granted by the pope (with special faculties for confessors in favor of the faithful who profit from the Jubilee itself)" (A. Gelardi, op. Cit. , P. 17 ).
No comments:
Post a Comment