An Apologetic Discussion

This is another reply to a post I read on face book. They were responding to a post I had placed on a CNN's reporter's facebook page objecting to a misuse of a quote of Pope John Paul II's. The parts in red are what they said that got me going.

Patrick: I must strongly object to your misuse of the quote from John Paul II. He was not talking about all religions being equal but that if a person is in ignorance of the true faith (i.e. the Catholic church) and they live their life to the best that their religion and conscience allow them to without committing any serious wrong doing. They may perhaps get to heaven. This however is on condition that having been given the opportunity to learn the true faith they do not reject it!

Ryan: I imagine it was convenient for past Popes to make the same case when they sold indulgences, Patrick.

Patrick: That does not negate Rick's misuse of the quote in his interview! Also the Popes did not sell indulgences but unscrupulous church men did. The selling of indulgences was condemned by the council of Trent!

Ryan: On the contrary, I think my point negates the entire quote in general. How can any one faith claim that it predominates over another? Any man-made ecclesiastical organization will be flawed, even if it is inspired by a higher authority. Either way you cut it with the quote, Rick's point is still more philosophically sound; there is no single path to God. Even Pope Benedict had to acknowledge this when he apologized for his remarks on Islam in 2006:

"I wish to explain that not religion and violence, but that religion and reason, go together. I hope that my profound respect for world religions and for Muslims who worship the one God and which help to promote peace, liberties, justice and moral values for the benefit of all humanity is clear."

Your sense of history confirms my point - as early as the Crusades the Popes DID sell Indulgences. Crusaders were actually forgiven their sins for serving the Pope and Catholic Church in the Holy Land. As the centuries went on, abuses did occur which did not represent the Pope as a figurehead per se (friars who profited from the magical win-all indulgence for a high price), but the practice was sanctioned by the Catholic Church in one form or another until the Reformation (Council of Trent). The fact of the matter is, it was a part of the Catholic Church's legacy. That, and a nice papal palace in Avignon. And I'm not anti-Catholic...I am actually Catholic myself. :-)

Patrick: Firstly, my objection was to Rick's misuse of the quote. The way that he used it was to imply a meaning other than the meaning Pope John Paul II had when he said it. Keep in mind I did agree with Rick on his other arguments concerning the founding of our country and the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution.

Secondly, the Catholic Church has always maintained and still maintains that it is not a man-made institution but founded by Jesus. That is one of the purposes of the Papacy itself, to maintain a clear unbroken line from Christ, and Peter as chief of the Apostles, through to the present day. Now I agree that the Church is made up of humans and they will make human mistakes, but the Church though made up of humans in not made by humans. The Church is only protected from making mistakes (by God) in two areas. That is Faith and Morals. The Doctrines of faith or morals can only be defined when the Pope (or the Pope with the Bishops of the world) clearly states that they are defining a doctrine to be believed by the whole of the Church. Anything that a Pope may say outside of this definition is not protected by God so what a Pope say merely as one educated as a theologian is subject to human error just as the rest of us are. (as a side note, when the Church has defined a doctrine it is not making up something new-- what it is saying is that this is something that the Church has always held to be true and it is choosing to make it clear that it is part of the faith due to some challenge that has been presented that contradicts what Catholics have always believed.)

Thirdly, I think you misunderstand what an indulgence is. Here are the rules. An indulgence does not forgive sin. It forgives the temporal punishment due to sin. (Temporal means temporary i.e. the doctrine of purgatory) To gain a indulgence one must be in the state of grace already (i.e. if you die you would eventually go to heaven though you may spend some time in purgatory). You must also be free from attachment to sin( i.e. be determined not to sin any more and not have a sin that has become a habit.) Also indulgences were still used by the Catholic Church until the 1960's and the second Vatican council (which did not outlaw them, only discontinuing their use. Now when the Pope forgave the sins of the Crusaders he was not granting an indulgence but exercising his power as a Priest and Bishop of the Church( i.e. the power to forgive sins, similar things have are done today when a parish priest or bishop gives general absolution when there is not enough time to hear all confessions. Alternatively, in the case of soldiers going into battle.)

One final note to be Catholic means to accept all the doctrines that the Catholic church teaches( that is what Catholic means. (catholic = universal or all)). Upon rejecting any doctrine one stops being Catholic, one can continue to say they are Catholic but that does not make it so, just as you can say you are a doctor but it does not make it so. (Similarly, Ted Kennedy is no more a Catholic than the Martin Luther King Jr. was.)

Ryan: The trouble is, Patrick, that not everyone shares your interpretation. The Church is a man-made institution. It simply is. For example, the act of Confession was not an original part of Church Doctrine, it began during the inquisition to root out heretics with suspected Jewish or Muslim ties. It is a fine line to say that a Pope is only in human error when he speaks as an individual theologian, and not when he is "defining" the entire Church's doctrine. If the latter is the only circumstance by which God protects his definition, then I suppose it is indeed a convenient way to affirm control with the confidence of tradition. Your concept of indulgences, I might add, is correct only to a certain degree. As I mentioned earlier, this concept was applied to suggest people would be released from hell. It was an abuse, but it was also pervasive. On the subject of Crusades, guess who benefited from the alms collected from indulgences? The European kings that led the armies. So basicially, the peasant dies free of believing he would spend time in purgatory, while at the same time he places money in his lordship's pocket. Didn't Jesus say it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into heaven? But yeah, totally, the Pope "defined" this concept, and it was truly a God-given principle so befitting of Catholic morals and faith.I appreciate your dismissal of my sense of faith, but I might remind you Jesus did the exact same thing when he preached he was the son of God, although he still considered himself a Jew.

Me: Ryan, In your reply you raised some issues which I was not able to answer with any great detail, as I do not have a degree in history, so I forwarded your post to my sister who does have a BA in history. Here below is her response I will comment on it to some extent. The response is addressed to me but I think you will get the Idea.

Ryan: The trouble is, Patrick, that not everyone shares your interpretation. The Church is a man-made institution.

Patrick: It is true that not every one beleives that the Catholic church is of divine origin. However, That claim is not one made by some one who can call themself, with any honesty, Catholic.

Maureen: Obviously, he does not believe that Jesus is God and he does not understand the teachings of the Church on the two natures of Christ.

Ryan: It simply is.

Maureen:Prove it. We have proof of his Resurrection how can it be man made. Tacitus and Josephus both speak of the Resurrection as well as the Bible.

Ryan: For example, the act of Confession was not an original part of Church Doctrine, it began during the inquisition to root out heretics with suspected Jewish or Muslim ties.

Maureen: Christ himself instituted the Sacrament of Confession when he said John 20:23 "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins you shall retain they are retained"

Patrick: The early church fathers also speak of it.

Ryan: It is a fine line to say that a Pope is only in human error when he speaks as an individual theologian, and not when he is "defining" the entire Church's doctrine.

Maureen: Matt 18:18 What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven and what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven". These quotes are directly from the Bible there are plenty more writings from the Church fathers on both items as well.

Ryan: If the latter is the only circumstance by which God protects his definition, then I suppose it is indeed a convenient way to affirm control with the confidence of tradition.

Maureen: Believing in the Church is a matter of choice, everyone has a free will. People choose whether they believe or not, the church has no control over what people believe. The Church always comes out on top. Why is it that every empire can fall, countries can change, regimes come and go, but the Church always comes out on top. It is always there and never changes.

Ryan: Your concept of indulgences, I might add, is correct only to a certain degree. As I mentioned earlier, this concept was applied to suggest people would be released from hell.

Maureen: Once you are in hell you will never leave. I don't know what he means or what he is talking about here.

Ryan: It was an abuse, but it was also pervasive.

Maureen: The people would have to give something up in order to save money to give to the crusades. It wasn't just the casual manner of handing over a couple bucks like today. Giving money was a sign of the sacrifice that people would need to do in order to gain the indulgence. The money was not just coming out of the poor man's pocket, but most likely more came out of the rich man's pockets.

Ryan: On the subject of Crusades, guess who benefited from the alms collected from indulgences?

Maureen: The Crusades was not just about Faith. The Muslims were a huge threat to the Sovereignty of the nations of Europe. They had already taken over the Christian Middle East and were in the Holy Land where many Christians went on pilgrimage. They had invaded the Byzantine Empire and were on a March to the West. They were soon to be in Spain. The Muslims are evil. They were worse than the pirates that were a continuous threat to the Europeans. You either joined their Faith or you would be killed as it still is today. Not a religion to defend.

Ryan: The European kings that led the armies.

Maureen: The alms given were used to pay for the armies used for the crusades. People knew the threat and knew they needed to help pay for them just as we pay taxes today to pay for our armies. Also I don't think that giving years of ones time to fight in wars was something the majority of kings and knights wanted to do. In fact the pope had to beg them to do it several times. They had the same attitude that we today have: "if it isn't here and bothering me right here then I won't deal with it right now"

Ryan: So basicially, the peasant

Maureen:(peasants were not the only ones giving money or time)

Ryan: dies free of believing he would spend time in purgatory,

Maureen: so long as he stayed in the state of grace.

Ryan: while at the same time he places money in his lordship's pocket. Didn't Jesus say it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into heaven?

Maureen: Oh he remembers a quote from the Bible. He likes to pick and choose. Why should he believe this quote when he does not seem to believe any other quotes. Besides the quote really has nothing to do with what he is talking about.

Ryan: But yeah, totally, the Pope "defined" this concept, and it was truly a God-given principle so befitting of Catholic morals and faith.

Patrick: This is an exerpt from the council of Trent (1545-1563)

DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

Ryan: I appreciate your dismissal of my sense of faith, but I might remind you Jesus did the exact same thing when he preached he was the son of God, although he still considered himself a Jew. "

Maureen: Basically he is saying that Jesus was hypocritical, just like he himself, he must therefore believe our faith is bogus and based on lies. He does not believe in the two natures. He does not believe that Jesus was God and Man. I think that you need to see where to start with this guy. He obviously is an agnostic. Why he labels himself a Catholic yet despises everything Catholic is beyond me. He may even be an atheist. Does he even believe in God? He does not seem to believe that there is a higher Truth. Try to direct him away from these little arguments and try to discover where he is in regards to his faith and the meaning of life. He can not have a right grasp of these little arguments because something else that is much bigger is not correct. If he believes in God, what God does he believe in. What kind of God. etc.