Why don't protestants bless Mary?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Sounds like a state of being rather than a physical address.

If purgatory is a state of being and not a place, how would that affect the purpose of indulgences?

 

[Rick Otto]

If purgatory is a state of being and not a place, how would that affect the purpose of indulgences?

I don't know the market well enough to say.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If purgatory is a state of being and not a place, how would that affect the purpose of indulgences?

Another related question is if the process of purgation is not a matter of time, how does that affect indulgences?

 

[Panevino]

If purgatory is a state of being and not a place, how would that affect the purpose of indulgences?

Another related question is if the process of purgation is not a matter of time, how does that affect indulgences?

Purgatory is essentially about a transformation / conforming of the person to Gods will. Purging/Resolving remnant inclinations to sin and temporal consequences of previously forgiven sins.
The acts that merit Indulgences are part of this conforming/tranformation.
without the correct disposition (act of faith through grace) these acts won't merit anything.

The indulgence is a recognition of that journey of dealing with these remnant inclinations /consequences.

Below are some extracts of other websites that discuss the above queries about time / duration previously associated with indulgences / purgatory.

"...The Church revised the norms for indulgences after the Second Vatican Council. Formerly, a partial indulgence was expressed to be an indulgence of a certain number of days or years. It was a popular misconception that these referred to the amount of time one's stay in Purgatory would be reduced. However, they instead referred to the public penances performed in the early Church. In the early Church, a person would have to perform a certain public penance for a certain number of days, weeks or months depending on the gravity of the sin. A partial indulgence was meant to equate to the merits of the public penances of that duration...."

Essentially duration of time was a representative scale of equivalence to early church penances to help give some perspective to the particular indulgence.
In other words the duration was symbolic and was not actually meant to represent time spent in purgatory

From Another website

"...
Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case....."

 

[Albion]

Purgatory is essentially about a transformation / conforming of the person to Gods will.

Being forgiven and saved doesn't do that, eh? What makes you think so?

Purging/Resolving remnant inclinations to sin and temporal consequences of previously forgiven sins.

How does punishment cause a conforming to God's will?

The acts that merit Indulgences are part of this conforming/tranformation.
without the correct disposition (act of faith through grace) these acts won't merit anything.

But since indulgences can--according to the only denomination that uses them--be assigned to departed loved one, how can it be possible that they depend for their effectiveness upon the disposition of the one getting the indulgence and giving it to someone else?

Below are some extracts of other websites that discuss the above queries about time / duration previously associated with indulgences / purgatory.

"...The Church revised the norms for indulgences after the Second Vatican Council. Formerly, a partial indulgence was expressed to be an indulgence of a certain number of days or years. It was a popular misconception that these referred to the amount of time one's stay in Purgatory would be reduced. However, they instead referred to the public penances performed in the early Church. In the early Church, a person would have to perform a certain public penance for a certain number of days, weeks or months depending on the gravity of the sin. A partial indulgence was meant to equate to the merits of the public penances of that duration...."

This was not a popular misconception; it was what the Church itself taught. The church has changed Purgatory because no one any longer believes in it as originally created and defined by the church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Purgatory is essentially about a transformation / conforming of the person to Gods will. Purging/Resolving remnant inclinations to sin and temporal consequences of previously forgiven sins.
The acts that merit Indulgences are part of this conforming/tranformation.
without the correct disposition (act of faith through grace) these acts won't merit anything.

The indulgence is a recognition of that journey of dealing with these remnant inclinations /consequences.

Below are some extracts of other websites that discuss the above queries about time / duration previously associated with indulgences / purgatory.

"...The Church revised the norms for indulgences after the Second Vatican Council. Formerly, a partial indulgence was expressed to be an indulgence of a certain number of days or years. It was a popular misconception that these referred to the amount of time one's stay in Purgatory would be reduced. However, they instead referred to the public penances performed in the early Church. In the early Church, a person would have to perform a certain public penance for a certain number of days, weeks or months depending on the gravity of the sin. A partial indulgence was meant to equate to the merits of the public penances of that duration...."

Essentially duration of time was a representative scale of equivalence to early church penances to help give some perspective to the particular indulgence.
In other words the duration was symbolic and was not actually meant to represent time spent in purgatory

From Another website

"...
Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case....."

So, can I take this to be an admission of error on the part of the Church which is incapable of error in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Panevino]

Being forgiven and saved doesn't do that, eh? What makes you think so?

in Catholic teaching it can , for example at baptism.
However on our walk, inclinations can stick. The immediate presence of God purifies similar to the illustration of people falling on thier face in prostration.Notice how 1cor3:13-15 references "the day" as in our particular judgment. "....Saved, yet so as by fire"

How does punishment cause a conforming to God's will?

See 1cor3:13-15 for example

But since indulgences can--according to the only denomination that uses them--be assigned to departed loved one, how can it be possible that they depend for their effectiveness upon the disposition of the one getting the indulgence and giving it to someone else?

consider the concept of
Intercession

This was not a popular misconception; it was what the Church itself taught. The church has changed Purgatory because no one any longer believes in it as originally created and defined by the church.

I'll try to get back to you on this one

 

[Panevino]

So, can I take this to be an admission of error on the part of the Church which is incapable of error in matters of faith and morals?

No, a response to misunderstanding

 

[Albion]

in Catholic teaching it can , for example at baptism.

Yes, but we were discussing Purgatory.

However on our walk, inclinations can stick. The immediate presence of God purifies similar to the illustration of people falling on thier face in prostration.Notice how 1cor3:13-15 references "the day" as in our particular judgment. "....Saved, yet so as by fire"

See 1cor3:13-15 for example

This may take a little more work, but it's the alleged need for a cleanup, "resolving remnant inclinations to sin" and so on, that's the issue for me at this stage, not other things related to Purgatory.'

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, a response to misunderstanding

So, if the Church determines that a particular doctrine is actually the opposite of what was previously taught and believed for centuries, the previous teaching was merely a "misunderstanding"? How very convenient.

 

[Albion]

So, if the Church determines that a particular doctrine is actually the opposite of what was previously taught and believed for centuries, the previous teaching was merely a "misunderstanding"? How very convenient.

Agreed--and particularly so because the Church holds that the teaching of the "Magisterium" infallibly determines doctrine no less than an ex cathedra Papal declaration. There is no doubt that the Magisterium has taught about Purgatory in specifics that contradict the "new and revised" idea of "Purgatory Lite"

 

[Panevino]

So, if the Church determines that a particular doctrine is actually the opposite of what was previously taught and believed for centuries, the previous teaching was merely a "misunderstanding"? How very convenient.

Opposite?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Opposite?

Yes, opposite, as in opposed or contrary to. For example, if I say that the post-death experience of a person entails extreme pain and torture, but several centuries later someone comes along and says that I was simply mistaken and the reality is that the experience is one of delight and refreshment, would you not agree that these are opposite opinions? One may be correct, but both cannot be correct.

 

[concretecamper]

So, if the Church determines that a particular doctrine is actually the opposite of what was previously taught and believed for centuries, the previous teaching was merely a "misunderstanding"? How very convenient.

Sounds like your talking about the Anglicans....doesn't it

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sounds like your talking about the Anglicans....doesn't it

Good point. It seems that this principle applies to many and not just one particular denomination. I think that the Anglicans are different in that they not only reverse doctrine, but, frequently embrace opposing doctrines. Thus, they can be both Reformed and Catholic.

 

[Rick Otto]

So, can I take this to be an admission of error on the part of the Church which is incapable of error in matters of faith and morals?

You first must show the teaching was spoken "from the chair".

 

[bbbbbbb]

You first must show the teaching was spoken "from the chair".

That, indeed, is a problem because, as we all know, virtually all of Catholic doctrine has not been technically "from the chair".

 

[Rick Otto]

That, indeed, is a problem because, as we all know, virtually all of Catholic doctrine has not been technically "from the chair".

In my experience, all definitions are subject to instant redefinition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In my experience, all definitions are subject to instant redefinition.

That has been my experience as well.

 

[Albion]

You first must show the teaching was spoken "from the chair".

Not exactly. Ex Cathedra declarations are believed to be infallible, but infallibility is thought to reside in the institutional church in the absence of any such Papal decrees. Hence, the Magisterium is said to be infallible, the Councils are said to be infallible, etc.