Quote Originally Posted by Bat-Man View Post
I

I accept that as a possibility. Are you willing to try to show us the truth regarding what Catholics really teach about indulgences?


Are you qualified to teach what the Catholic Church teaches?

If so, can you teach us what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences to try to clear up this issue?

I read all of what you wrote before responding, but I'd still like some more clarification.


As a member of the "LDS" Church who is qualified to teach what the "LDS" Church teaches, I'll make that determination, myself, once I believe I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches.


I'm not familiar with that "Protestant" practice, and I'm also not sure that I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences, so I don't know whether or not that is a fair comparison.


Is your personal perspective in line with what the Catholic Church teaches?

Are you basically saying that you believe an indulgence is a means of saying "I'm sorry" for what you or someone else did?

Do you believe someone can give money to remove some burden from sin?

I'd like a very concise and simple explanation of what an indulgence really is, rathter than a link to pages and pages and pages that do not directly state clearly and concisely what an indulgence is, if possible.


Okay, I think I know what you may mean here, but I'm not entirely sure.

Say, for example, that David or someone from the family of David chose to go to the family of Uriah to give them some money while saying they hoped that money would help to alleviate some of the problems that he (David) caused by sending Uriah to war with the hope that he would be killed.

Is that a fair description of what you think is the purpose for an indulgence?

If so, what would the person who accepted that money be saying by accepting that money as an "indulgence" ?


I'm not sure what you are stating is the purpose of an indulgence, but I think you are saying an "indulgence" is intended to allow someone to "indulge" in some sin without reaping any consequences for committing that sin, and if that's what you're really saying, then I think the baptism Jesus Christ expects from all of his followers before he will cleanse us from all of our sins, as long as we repent, is a perfect ****ogy.
Batman, I am not here stating what you believe, I am a Catholic. I am only drawing a distinction that I feel the author of the OP clearly does not understand in making such a comparison. I am inclined to think that an indulgence is done through the temple and not directly to the offending persons. The whole point of reconcilation is not to be something between two people, but through the mediation of God. Hence, indulgences are something within the framework of the Church under the new covenant. Obviously the bitterness of David's family cannot be undone, unless they themselves turn to God for consolation. You can certainly share your belief about baptism for the dead in your own tradition, but baptism in general even for the living is something related to salvation. Indulgences do not carry any salvaic merit, only as a mean of purging the temporal effects of the consequences of sin, which is why I mentioned David's example. The text that Purgatory is developed from is 1 Cor. 3.13-15. It is a state, not a place and it is only reserved for the Christian. If you want to know more on indulgences, I suggest a reading from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To answer your question directly, money does not remove sin. Let me put it this way, when you sin, you sin against yourself, another person, against God, and against the community. You can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus, but the consequences of your actions still remain. Hence, giving money to the Church is the same as in the O.T. giving to the temple of God. Such gifts bring about a more effecient priesthood giving them the necessities for their daily routines and the growth and maintanance needs of the community. Hence, indulgences sold by Tetzel for the growth of a basilica is helpful for the not only the image of the Church, but also beneficial to the families and friends that gave for a deceased loved one. It is a testimony of love, not obligation or law. Your church's practice to baptise for the dead is probably understood to be a 'loving" act, but the purpose of baptism for the living is not the same purpose for indulgences. Hence, I am only pointing out to the author of the OP such a distinction that makes the comparisons invalid.