Talk:Indulgence

Luther

"Everyone knows" that Luther condemned indulgences in the 95 Theses: it is reported widely in supposedly WP:RS and in the current article itself. The trouble is, it is not exactly true: if you look at article 71 and 72 you get a better foundation:

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and cursed.

72. But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of pardons naughty and impudent words.

There will be others with a better understanding, but Luther at this stage limited indulgences relative to the Gospel, and decried abuses, but explicitly allowed apostolic pardons (from the power of the keys) which relate to the remission of penalties not some alternaive route to the forgiveness of sins. Even in 1525, in his Bondage of the Will, he described the issue of Indulgences as comparatively trivial or superficial.

So may I suggest that editors should be careful to use "abuse of indulgences" or "unsound promises about indulgences" or "simony" etc. rather than the blanket Luther condemned "indulgences." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Confusing

Howdy! I'm not sure how to improve this article. I find it extremely confusing. I was raised Catholic, and I have some understanding of indulgences, but this article goes over my head. I think there are too many words that are not clearly defined in a way that a layman would understand. There also seem to be quotes from Scripture or from historians that I think would be more effective if paraphrased in lay terms, rather than left as is.

An example is the second quote in the lead paragraph ("a remission...prescribed conditions"). The quote might be fine if the terms used in it were directly and plainly defined immediate after. What does remission mean in this context? What is a temporal punishment? Why is there punishment if the sin is already forgiven? These things seem to get covered later in the article, but it would be nice to have a quick explanation up front.

Other examples are "severe penances of the early church", "intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom", "treasury of merit", penance vs Purgatory, etc.

To me, the intro feels like it's written for folks who already know this, rather than being helpful for someone who may be less familiar. I think it might benefit for someone to explain it without using church lingo. If possible 🙂

Maybe better examples are in the next section. "[T]hey acquire the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment." What is a liability of guilt and what is a liability of punishment? What does liability mean in this context?

"[T]o separate a person from [God] to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection, a consequence known as the "eternal punishment" of sin." I think this is saying that damnation is the penalty, but it's really not clear. I'm not sure what "to the end of suffering the eternal death of hell as an effect of this rejection" means or what clarity it brings. Maybe there's some missing punctuation? Kastchei (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Assessment

There is a {{citation needed}} tag on the article, which technically reduces this to a Class C article. However, there appears to be an appropriate reference to place there that occurs later in the article. Not an expert myself, but perhaps someone editing this article can make the appropriate change to retain B status. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Bias

In this article it seems there is a bias towards the Catholic church, such lines as "This oft-quoted saying was by no means representative of the official Catholic teaching on indulgences, but rather, more a reflection of Tetzel's capacity to exaggerate" demonstrate this. The sources also seem to indicate this since they are taken from majorly biased sources such as the churches themselves. Raine tempestas (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Controversy; history; critique; scriptural basis

There is a roomful of elephants in this article: -it makes indulgences sound like a central part of catholic life - it says nothing about the conservative ghetto this practice persists in VS. mature progressive faith - its ultimately misleading as anything but a byzantine history lesson

contentiions/missing: - there is no scriptural basis for this calculative gaming of sin/forgiveness; or even any extensive understanding of hell. Dante is not scrpture or doctrine. - Indulgences arent part of the sacraments; most Catholics dont believe in indulgences today or know of them; the overreach of this practice is an Anachronism and 5he article says nothing about it. -indulgences amount to a superstition and at best a nostalgia rejected by contemporary serious theologians -this devotionalism is the sign of a childish, bankrupt spirituality amounting to spiritual pride to most.

There should be a controversy section at the very least . ~2026-28833-11 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)