The Roman definition of an indulgence can be found, for example, in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (Geoffrey Chapman 1994 p331), quoting from Paul V1 Indulgentiarum Doctrina January 1, 1967. In summary, an indulgence remits the temporal punishment due to sins of which the guilt has
previously been forgiven. Where the ‘faithful Christian’ has the right attitude and certain conditions are met the Church is able to grant an indulgence from ‘the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints’. There are two kinds of indulgence. A plenary removes all temporal punishment, but a partial only some. All indulgences are effective for the living or the dead.

If you read the article on purgatory in our last issue you will recognize how this stems from the Roman view of the atonement and what it was that the Lord Jesus actually accomplished on the cross. Rome believes that He secured redemption and dealt with the sinner’s guilt. The repentant and believing sinner could therefore receive forgiveness, but there was still a necessity for him or her to make satisfaction for breaking God’s Law. This will either be completed here, or after this life in purgatory.

Every instructed Protestant knows that the New Testament makes provision for discipline within the church. Sadly, the Christian may fall into open sin that has to be dealt with appropriately by the local church. As the church spread, however, and with the passage of time, a more complex system of penitential discipline developed, associated with this idea of satisfaction, eventually arriving at the point where indulgences and purgatory were accepted.

At the same time there emerged the theology of a treasury of merit from which the Church could draw to help needy souls still making satisfaction for their sins, either here or in purgatory. This merit was to be found in Christ and in good works over and above what had been needed in the lives of others. All this was embodied in official statements of doctrine in the medieval and pre-Reformation periods, and it led to the abuses so strongly attacked by Martin Luther in his 95 theses.

What of the modern Roman position? Is it still the same? To answer those questions we can turn to the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, the document of Paul V1 referred to above and which can be found in Vatican Council 11 - The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents Vol 1, edited by Austin Flannery (Fowler Wright Books Ltd 1981).

In this it is claimed that indulgences are founded on divine revelation, with emphasis on the teaching of the bishops and Roman Pontiffs across the centuries. In dealing with sin and expiation of sin it is declared that out of love to Christ there have been those carrying their cross ‘to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others’ p65. The treasury of the Church is said to exist in the infinite value of Christ’s merits, but it includes the prayers and good works of Mary and the saints.

The fruits of Christ’s redemption are seen as being applied by the Church in the granting of indulgences. Abuses in the past are recognised and deplored, but the Tridentine anathema on those who see indulgences as useless is quoted with apparent approval.

The benefits of indulgences are described, and the practice is recommended to the faithful, though it should not be allowed to lessen the importance or value of the sacraments in their lives.

A chapter on regulations ends the document. New rules for partial
indulgences abolish their measurement in terms of days and years. Stress is placed on love and the value of actions. Plenary indulgences are reduced in number.

There is then a list of twenty norms or regulations, too complex to
summarize here. However, an interesting example is no.17, which states that the use of ‘an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal)’, which has been blessed by a priest, gains a partial indulgence. If it has been blessed, though, by the Pope or a bishop, used under certain conditions it can gain a plenary indulgence.

Given the basic presuppositions of Roman teaching on sin and the atoning work of our Lord Jesus this doctrine on indulgences follows logically. It is no surprise, then, that a sincere believer in the authority of the Roman Church will obey that teaching with earnest devotion.

Yet those basic presuppositions do great dishonor to our Lord Jesus Christ.

He has dealt with our sin and sins completely. He has made a complete and final satisfaction for them. He is made to us ‘wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption’ (1Cor. 1:30), and Paul goes on to quote Jeremiah 9:24 ‘He that glories, let him glory in the Lord’.

There is no merit that avails for us except the merit of the Saviour. When we confess our sins to God, ‘He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9), and John has said, “just before, that it is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin”.

How wonderfully simple and liberating the Gospel is over against the complex teaching of Rome on indulgences. As we have already seen Rome takes sin seriously, and it places great emphasis on the value of good works, but the failure to grasp the completeness of the Saviour’s work affects the Roman understanding of all that.