The act of giving an "indulgence" is equivalent to what Easterns and Orientals would term "economy." In the early Church, an "indulgence" was the term used for the act of a bishop to lessen or soften the usual penalty for a particular sin (e.g. St.Basil) . This indulgence was given only after evidence of a repentant life - in other words, good works. Latin Catholics still use the word "indulgence" to refer to this practice, while Eastern and Oriental Catholics prefer to use the term "economy" (IOW, the term "indulgence" fell out of use in the vocabulary of Eastern and Oriental Catholics)

Like Latins, Easterns and Orientals also use "indulgences" for the dead. But, once again, Eastern and Orientals don't actually use the term "indulgences" as regards this practice. We prefer to SIMPLY say that our prayers and suffrages can help those in the afterlife.

Different from the Easterns (from my understanding), and similar to the Latins, Orientals also utilize specifically PENITENTIAL ACTS to help those in the afterlife.

The Latin DOGMA on indulgences simply states that 1) indulgences are helpful to the Christian, 2) God has granted the Church the power to give indulgences, and 3) the efficacy of indulgences is derived from the superabundant merits of Christ. Like the specific DOGMA regarding Purgatory, IMHO, there is nothing in the Latin DOGMA on Indulgences that could be objectionable to Eastern or Oriental sensibilities.

However, there is a portion of the general Latin teaching on indulgences - the portion that is NOT dogmatized, AFAIK - that is objectionable to Eastern and Oriental sensibilities. Namely, the idea that indulgences are meant to take away the punishment for sins. To Easterns and Orientals, an "indulgence" - or at least our own version of it - is not applied to take away punishment, but rather to increase holiness.

At this point, there is a difference between the Eastern and Oriental understanding of why this particular facet of the Latin teaching is objectionable. Easterns (from my understanding) don't agree with the penitential aspects of the Latin teaching, and would say that Christians don't need to make up for temporal punishment at all, but would only require increase in holiness. Orientals, on the other hand, generally do agree with the need for temporal punishment as a means to increase holiness. Thus, whereas an Eastern might argue, "why apply an indulgence to take something away that was not there to begin with (i.e., temporal punishsment)?", an Oriental would argue, "why apply an indulgence to take something away that is meant to lead to holiness (i.e., temporal punishment)?"

Blessings,
Marduk

Since the Pope assigns indulgences to specific prayers and acts of piety and charity it makes more sense to have recourse to these indulgenced prayers and acts than to un-indulgenced ones. Applying such indulgenced prayers to the souls in Purgatory is guaranteed to reduce their time there and their suffering. That, after all, is the purpose for which the Pope creates indulgences.

>> The Latin DOGMA on indulgences simply states that 1) indulgences are helpful to the Christian, 2) God has granted the Church the power to give indulgences, <<

Why is the Pontiff so "restrained" about handing out indulgences. He offers 300 days off Purgatory for, say, the Memorare and 200 days for the Salve Regina. These are partial indulgences.

Plenary indulgences seem, in the opinion of most educated Catholics, to be completely out of the reach of the faithful since the conditions to obtain one are set so high, e.g., a complete non-attachment to sin. Something even the Saints hardly achieve.

If the Church has access to the infinite merits of Christ and the Pope has authority to apply them as he sees fit, why does he hold back from applying them with more largesse and generosity? Why, for example, does he not make a plenary indulgence an integral part of every funeral service and thereby send all Catholic souls straight to heaven without the need of purgatorial sufferings to repay the debt of temporal punishment. If this power to dispense from purgatorial suffering exists then why is it not exercised more generously?

It's funny. I guess it's all a matter of how you look at it. I've always thought that 300 days indulgence for saying a simple prayer, or even a plenary indulgence for saying a rosary under certain conditions, was actually quite indulgent, especially considering the rather strident penitential discipline of the early Church.

I do agree that the "usual conditions" for granting an indulgence (including a complete detachment from sin) make obtaining a plenary indulgence most unlikely for almost all Christians living in the world today.

Fr David Straut

Whether restrained or not, such discretion was given to Peter and the Apostles by the Lord.



I'd like to hear more about this: who and where stated.

Not "if": Only the true Church recognizes that it has the plenitude of such and...


... can confidently use it.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm

The EWTN experts outline the conditions necessary to gain indulgences

"A plenary indulgence can be gained only once a day. In order to obtain it, the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

"—have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;"

I'm glad to see this as the "educated Catholic" source since they are committed to giving the Church's teaching.



Whew, that's a relief, that word "disposition" makes all the difference. I think we are capable of forming "the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin." It is, in fact, what should be the case in general. On the other hand, "a complete non-attachment to sin" as originally stated is, well, beyond the normal disposition of Man after the Fall.

You are at odds with the teaching of your Church on this matter. Canon Law explicitly defines an indulgence as a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

This is how an indulgence is defined in the Code of Canon Law (canon 992) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (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".

Here are the official requirements from Rome.


Norms on Indulgences
[from the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968.]

Plenary Indulgences......

................

"It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent.

"If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only..."

Bless, Father Hieromonk Ambrose!

Yes, and this is why there are those Catholics who consider that only someone of a certain level of holiness and who has achieved "dispassion" could truly obtain a "plenary indulgence."

If I may ask you two questions regarding indulgences and Orthodoxy:

1) It has been said that some sort of "indulgence" was used in the time of St Nicodemos Hagioritis and sanctioned by local Greek Orthodox Church authorities. Is this true? If so, how was such an "indulgence" understood?

2) In the book on the Mother of God "Bogomater" by the Russian Orthodox scholar, Professor Poselianin, there are numerous pilgrimages listed to Orthodox shrines of locally venerated icons of the Most Holy Theotokos. Poselianin describes them all using the term "Otpust." What is an "Otpust" in Orthodoxy?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Bless, Father Hieromonk!

Yes, you are right again.

Eastern Catholics like to provide an "Eastern Christian" view on what is Roman Catholic teaching and doctrine.

My own difficulty with that approach i.e. "Easternizing" RC doctrines and practices is that the enterprise appears doomed from the outset.

For if the doctrine or practice is founded on RC theological praxis from the start, how successful may Eastern Catholics be in their effort to "Easternize" something that is based on an issue arising from a different praxis?

Our old parish priest found indulgences to be too legalistic and the product of what he called "accountancy theology."

We are obliged to perform works of holiness, charity and conversion throughout our lives, praying unceasingly to God and turning away from sin. IF indulgences are meant to be some sort of an "exemption" from that, then they are not only undesireable - but dangerous to our spiritual life as well.

Alex

I again note the word "disposition." And again I can only say that the Church is not teaching here an anthropology contrary to all that it teaches in its soteriology:



Also, the CIC was quoted:



What does the CCEO have to say on this?

I don't see any reference to it after a brief review.

Unfortunately yes, but it was not indulgences which were being sold but pardons for sin. Thank the Lord that practice did not last long.

The term "Otpust" means "dismissal" and is used liturgically to designate the dismissal prayer which always concludes a service - "May Christ our true God, through the prayers of His all holy Mother.... etc." It varies a little every day because it includes the name of the saints being commemorated. I don't know the word "otpust" used to mean a pilgrimage but then I am not a native Russian speaker.

I really don't see how it matters. There cannot be two varying afterlife realities - one for Roman Catholics whose purgatory time may be shortened and even eliminated entirely by indulgences and one for Eastern Catholics whose purgatory time cannot be shortened by indulgences. That would disadvantage Eastern Catholics enormously. And after all, who can forbid God applying an indulgence to a Eastern Catholic soul suffering in Purgatory?

Is not the Catechism of the Catholic Church the universal Catechism for the universal Church and applicable to all Catholics?