Ways to reveal false doctrines

That is certainly a fact, but your insistence that is the case here is merely conjecture.

Hank,
Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???Who cares???

They ALL lived like barbarians back then.

What does it prove? Can't your doctines stand on their own? Is it necessary to prove that some Catholics sinned to make a case for your doctines?

God bless you,
Juan Diego

 

Your accusation is a lie.

[ March 15, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Juan Diego ]

 

Dear GS,
You need to keep a perspective here. This comes from a man who believes that St.Patrick was a Baptist!!!

God bless you,
Juan Diego

[ March 15, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Juan Diego ]

 

In the Last Supper passages it says they ate the bread and drank the cup, not ate his body and drank his blood. In John 6, they were driven away by the seriousness of the statement. Not one of them asked for a piece of arm or a cool refreshing cup of blood. They understood that Christ was talking about total commitment to himself.

Catholics do not practice the Eucharist as a memorial. They believe it to be a sacrament that conveys grace. They believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. You appear not to know Catholic doctrine very well.

It is impossible to read anything without interpretation. Every reader is an interpreter. And any reader can pick up Scripture and make sense of it. The confusing thing through the years has been the conflicting message, largely that of the RCC, whereby people have been confused by the plain meaning of Scripture.
I routinely tell my congregation not to believe something becuase I say it. It is their responsibility to get into the word and check me out to see if what I am saying is true.

The indulgence was not a method of practice. It was a doctrine about souls beyond this life. It was in reality a way to make money for the church under spiritual guises. These were doctrines and any reader of history would know that. They were published in papal bulls by the "infallible" office of the pope.

[qb]

As i have said, everything requires interpretation. I believe what I do beasue of what Scripture says. It just so happens that the Baptist, by and large, are in line with what Scripture says.

The Catholics have repeatedly claimed Baptist teaching is false. Just read the threads.

If you are right then we are wrong. If we are right then you are wrong. Let it not be thought that there is a middle ground. There is no such thing. We are not in full communion with the Catholic church because of what we believe about Scripture and its doctrines. Our belief is mutually exclusive of yours.

 

Dear Catholics friends, and yes some Catholic brothers and sisters,

Why do I do this? That is, I occasionally bring these charges against the Church of Rome?

Because of the claims that the RC Church makes, that is that she is the true Church of Jesus Christ through the apostolic succession beginning with Peter.
I would expect a lot more from the True Church of Jesus Christ than the history of violence and corruption of the Holy Roman Empire.

"By their fruits you shall know them".

Because even if that were true at one time (and I do believe that the Church of Rome was a legitimate autonomous local Church at one time) she has lost that position due to the failure of the two tests of Scripture (1 John) of the true believer: Right Doctrine and Pure Practice.

Many of you are probably not saved because you cannot separate Christ from the RCC sacramental works system. If you would/could then you would be saved and perhaps separate from this church.

If I can show you by their Practice (bloodshed of the innocent) that they cannot be the true Church with blood on their hands then perhaps the Lord will remove the veil from your eyes.

I will cede to the fact that the KKK has blood on their hands. I will now and forever condemn them as well as the RCC or any organization that practices or has practiced murder because the Scripture condemns murder (though the KKK does not claim to be the True Church of Jesus Christ by apostolic succession).

In any case, I won't belabor this because it is unpleasant for me as well as you.

One last word to my Catholic brethren: Under the Law, Blood (except for the blood of Christ) defiles and makes unclean all that it touches.

2 Corinthians 6: 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

HankD

[ March 15, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Thank you for a reasonable reply Hank. I have not posted all the material I have that gives some understanding to the Inquisition because I don't think it will do much good. Just keep in mind that there are two sides to every problem. The Church has been portrayed as having bloody hands, but no one has looked into the actual trials that occured at the time. The assumption is that all those people were merely innocent Bible believing people who wanted freedom of religion. If you look into it more closely and as some of GraceSaves posts indicate you will find that is just not the case. There seems to be no desire for understanding. Take for instance the most famous trial of the Inquisition. Four jews were on trial because they had taken a 4 year old Christian boy to a cave on the coast and crucified him as though he were Christ. When the Spanish people heard of this they were up in arms and wanted to kill all the Jews. Only by the protection of Queen Isabela did they survive.

Because some Catholics prosecuted people justly or unjustly doesn't not mean that the Church did such. So see there is another side.

Since you admit that the Church was right at one time don't you think you need to look into the matter more objectively and find out for yourself if the charges are really justified.

Starting your own church is never justified. OK?

Anyway, please continue to work at this with an open mind that you seem to be displaying.

God bless you,
Juan Diego

 

Hank,

I'm replying below using *** under your comments.

LaRae



Because of the claims that the RC Church makes, that is that she is the true Church of Jesus Christ through the apostolic succession beginning with Peter.
I would expect a lot more from the True Church of Jesus Christ than the history of violence and corruption of the Holy Roman Empire.

"By their fruits you shall know them".]

***Yes indeedy and I have yet to see ANY denomination that has unblemished fruit.

Many of you are probably not saved because you cannot separate Christ from the RCC sacramental works system. If you would/could then you would be saved and perhaps separate from this church.

***It's not your call to determine and you can't tell anyway, some people are deceivers and will professed to be saved and yet aren't.......for some people salavation comes in an instant...for other's it takes years...work out your salvation with fear and trembling....no one said it had to be instantaneous, done while answering to an alter call. You are incorrect to think that Catholics rely on works to get salvation.

If I can show you by their Practice (bloodshed of the innocent) that they cannot be the true Church with blood on their hands then perhaps the Lord will remove the veil from your eyes.

I will cede to the fact that the KKK has blood on their hands. I will now and forever condemn them as well as the RCC or any organization that practices or has practiced murder because the Scripture condemns murder (though the KKK does not claim to be the True Church of Jesus Christ by apostolic succession).

***Then you will have to condem Protestant and non-Catholic denominations because none of them have clean hands....they all have blood on them.

One last word to my Catholic brethren: Under the Law, Blood (except for the blood of Christ) defiles and makes unclean all that it touches.

***So do you believe in the Real Presence then?

LaRae

 

First of all, please show me where my church, the wisconsin synod Lutherans have blood on our hands.

Now since the reformation, the Catholic church has gotten even WORSE. Five hundred years ago Luther said there were two reasons to identify the pope as the Antichrist. The pope usurps Christ's authority to himself, and he curses the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Is Luther's claim still valid today?

The official declaration of papal infallibility was decreed by Vatican I in 1870. In the 1960s papal authority was reaffirmed by Vatican II, which declared:

Religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra [that is, in a formal doctrinal decree] (Vatican II, p 48).

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official guide for Catholic teaching says:

The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (Par. 882).

The Supreme Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals (Par. 891).

Official Catholic teaching today subtracts nothing from the authority and infallibility of the pope. He can declare that eating meat on Friday is a sin, or he can change his mind and allow it. By his authority he can forbid priests to marry, and he can ban all forms of artificial family planning. He can forbid divorce and remarriage to a wronged wife and allow annulment for an adulterous husband. If Catholics enjoy some greater freedoms today, it is by papal permission not by acknowledgment of their God-given rights. The first of Luther's charges against the Pope is still valid

The Council of Trent, a important Catholic council called to reject the teachings of the Reformation, went so far as to curse the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. It declared:

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is by trust alone by which we are justified, let him be damned [anathema] (Canon XII

This and many similar statements are still official Catholic teaching. The new Catholic catechism and other contemporary documents still teach that salvation is by a combination of faith and works.

Catholic teaching still diminishes the glory of Christ by attributing a share in the work of salvation to Mary. The present pope is a zealous promoter of devotion to Mary. The new catechism, which the pope dedicated to Mary, reaffirms her sinlessness and her bodily assumption to heaven. Concerning her role in salvation the catechism says:

Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace. As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Par. 494).

Other traditional Catholic doctrines such as granting equal authority to Scripture and tradition, purgatory, and the sacrifice of the mass still detract from the principles by Scripture alone and by faith alone. Some of these traditional doctrines may be downplayed in more liberal parishes, but nothing has been changed in the official teaching

We must continue to warn against this dangerous error, but we must not forget why we speak against this Catholic teaching. It is not that we are hostile to Catholics. On the contrary, our warnings against Catholic doctrine are an expression of loving concern for Catholics. If salvation by grace alone through faith alone is the only way to salvation, we want all people to share this happiness we have found. Nothing can bring peace of conscience to troubled sinners except the teaching that forgiveness does not depend on anything in us, but on the completed work of Christ. Defending and proclaiming this comforting message is the chief duty of the church.

Exerps from http://www.wels.net//sab/nl/catholic.html

 

Dear LaRae,

RE: Blood on their hands…

You missed my point. Probably because I left too much to be assumed, that is my fault.

It doesn't matter that others have blood on their hands in the light of the fact that only the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, infallible in matters of faith and morals (ex cathedra) speaking in the name of God.

Each Pope puts his stamp of approval on all preceding popes when he ascends the throne of the Vicar of Christ on earth. Yet several popes have blood guilt upon them. Several of these "Vicars of Christ" have actively or passively shed the blood of the innocent.

In reality, there is no Vicar of Christ on earth. Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and His Spirit resides in the members of His Church on earth. The only blood on His hands was His own, shed once for our sins.

HankD

 

Hank,

I'm going to reply below with ***

LaRae
--------------------



It doesn't matter that others have blood on their hands in the light of the fact that only the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, infallible in matters of faith and morals (ex cathedra) speaking in the name of God.

***The Pope's title is Vicar of Christ, infallible in matters of faith and morals only...he is infallible not impeccable. What do you understand the Pope's role to be?

Each Pope puts his stamp of approval on all preceding popes when he ascends the throne of the Vicar of Christ on earth. Yet several popes have blood guilt upon them. Several of these "Vicars of Christ" have actively or passively shed the blood of the innocent.

***I don't know where you are getting this line of thought...it isn't even making sense to me. JP2 certainly does not claim he is putting his stamp of approval on the sins of any other Pope. The RCC has recognized there were corrupt Popes...their sin doesn't corrupt a whole Church.....if you think this way then there's a whole heck of alot of Churches who are in trouble.

In reality, there is no Vicar of Christ on earth. Jesus Christ is the head of His Church and His Spirit resides in the members of His Church on earth. The only blood on His hands was His own, shed once for our sins.

***Ok well no one is saying you have to accept Christ appointed successors to His ministry.

LaRae

 

I'm coming very late to this thread, so forgive me if some of these points were made earlier.

First, my own background is Baptist. I was raised in an independent, fundamental, dispensational, KJV Only church. Our pastor (we had the same one for years and years all through my childhood and young adulthood and he only recently retired) preached from the pulpit that the Catholic church was doomed to the pits of hell simply because it did not hold to doctrine with which he agreed. He was clear in preaching that Catholics were lost and should be clear targets of evangelism. But he also raged on the same theme for just about everyone else in Christendom, including other Baptists that particularly used modern versions of the Bible and did things socially and culturally that he didn't approve of. He was particularly convinced that Southern Baptists were just about as bad as Catholics, mainly because they let women wear pants to church (in South Carolina, that only happens on Sunday night in most SBC churches, but that was enough for him)and sometimes they pray out loud.

I had a real desire to be "on fire for Christ". The end result of that was a deep discipleship experience with some Christians from outside my own church. As I began to deeply study the Bible, with them and later with others I met while attending college, I began to evaluate my own church experience as being an abberation, rather than centered in truth. I realized, very quickly in the hothouse atmosphere of two extreme fundamentalist Bible colleges, that what I had been raised in was nothing more than a religion which had very little to do with true Christianity or the Jesus of the Bible. It was heavy on correct doctrine (recognizing only an extreme literal interpretation of the Bible as it was read in King James English, with no consideration of what the original audience understood or interpreted when they read it, nor of the culture of the time in which it was written) and treated the Bible as a "holy rule book" rather than historical records of God revealing himself to humans. It was equally heavy on discipline and form, insistent upon the fact that the way it saw the Bible was the way all had to see the Bible and it was so easy to just dismiss everyone to hell who didn't see it the same way, rather than think, pray, seek God, listen to the Holy Spirit and consider the fact that someone else might also hold a valid view.

It was a religion that was completely void of grace, justice, mercy and agape love, which the Bible teaches are the very essence of Christian faith and living. So, I left. Basically, I threw the Baby out with the bathwater in abandoning the church for a lone ranger sort of faith. I had Christ, I didn't need man's church.

However, I have learned some things since then which have not only changed my mind about the church, but have, I believe, allowed me to come back into it and experience it fully.

1. No one denomination or group has a corner on the truth. Being able to separate Bible texts by single verses and then quote them in support of your belief is neither correct interpretation nor right doctrine. The Bible itself tells us that now we see "as through a glass darkly" (and that's even King James, I believe!). The Kingdom of God on earth, which is the church, includes all who have believed in Jesus, and is a whole lot larger than most people think it is.

2. Baptists have their skeleton closet of corruption, manipulation, bad doctrine, mistreatment of people, prejudice and all sorts of other problems and difficulties. Fortunately, their traditional insistence on separation of church and state has kept them from having the political power to burn people at the stake and conduct inquisitions, but watch out! There are many Baptists who post on this board who advocate doing just that, and I can guarantee you that if they ever succeed in their reconstructionist takeover attempts of the US government, those who disagree will think they are living in pure hell. The church in which I grew up still will not allow African-Americans to hold membership (not that any would be interested). I know of only a handful of fundamentalist Baptist churches who will allow it, and those that do are careful to make sure that they don't "take over the church".

3. The literal approach to interpreting the Bible creates a culture of people who think of themselves as being the true church, because they claim to rely solely upon scripture. However, if you examine their practices closely, you will find that their literalism is rather selective. They have a whole series of invented explanations and discussions as to why they are literal in some places, but not in others. And it is all based on whatever Bible college theology their pastor happens to hold, not on what the Bible really means. Most aren't really interested in the truth, because they wouldn't know it if it hit them in the face. Truth, to them, is what they have always been taught in their church. Anything that leads to a thoughtful analysis of the scripture beyond that is branded as liberalism or heresy.

We all have our quirks and faults, because we are human. The Baptists who rage against Catholics on this board are only putting forth a view of Christianity that is largely human, and certainly not perfect. I believe that Jesus grieves daily over the arrogance and bitterness that is exchanged between those who claim his name as their own.

 

You are definitely forgiven.

Thank you for a little bit of fresh air. I believe you are right. Please forgive any arrogance I may have displayed.

God bless you,
Juan Diego

 

You're talking about a church that is barely 150 years old compared to one that is nearly 2000 years old and survived the "dark ages" of human history. Is that comparable? Is it?

That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. It's called "Appeal to Authority." Look it up. If the Bible is your final authority, why are you having to quote Luther...without even quoting him?

Which is what you just did, by using the teachings of Martin Luther in your defense. Surely when the Pope speaks out on the sanctity of human life, even if it is not "ex cathedra," it is something that we should listen to! This does not mean that he is free from error in these instances, but rather, as they physical leader of the church, he is the one who guides us (just as Luther guides you still today).

Thanks for the quotes. The problem is that you listen to Luther part of the time, but not all of the time. Luther was adamently against birth control and contraception (he considered it "vile"), but your synod now rejects that. Rather pick-and-chose doctrine if you ask me.

The eating of meets on Friday (or lack there of) is something decided by the bishops of an area. For instance, there are different customs in America than in Europe. Look things up before you declare them as fact.

Priesthood celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. This has been brought up before, and you proudly ignored it.

Where do you get this information on divorce/anullment? Could you provide a specific case please, or rather, a number of cases that meet your criteria?

You misquoted. You should have anathema in the text, and "damned" in the brackets. Futhermore, Luther came up with the "faith alone" doctrine after being falsely taught by the nominalists that God was cruel and unmerciful. In his vigor to disprove them (rightly so), he took the doctrine farther than he should have. The reformation idea of "by faith alone" is exactly that...an idea new to the reformation.

If the Catholic Church gave in to ever whim of a reformer, what would she be today? Not even Luther and Calvin can agree...so which one should the Church have sided with? You'll say Luther because it's who you believe holds the truth. But what about Calvin's followers? They would want the church to REFORM to their beliefs? Everyone wants what they want, so exactly how could the Church reform and make everyone happy? Instead, and thankfully so, she holds fast to the truth, not corrupted by the whims of various reformers.

Something that Martin Luther was a fervent believer in. Furthermore, you can continue to say these things, but your beliefs are corrupted by your synod's beliefs. Mary in no way takes away from the Glory of Christ. How you see the role of Mary does, but it doesn't to me. How then can you say it does, when I believe it doesn't? How are you rejecting the fervent beliefs of your own church's founder?

You call "purgatory" a heresy. I call "faith alone" a heresy. Does this get us anywhere? No.

Great! You do know that Catholics believe that forgiveness is wholly undeserved, and the mere confessing of our sins before Christ, in repentance, frees us from the condemnations of hell. And it is by this grace, this undeserved love and mercy, that we obtain heaven, the ultimate goal, the home above for all Christians?

Your preaching would be better spent on those who do not know this love. I know this love. I am deserving of hell, but Christ has raised me up. I live in Him; He lives in me. Only by the power of grace.

God's peace to you,

GraceSaves

 

Hi all,

For starters, I'll say that I won't waste my time typing my usual reminder about how we should treat each other with respect in light of the fact that we are to present a united front for Christ for any and all seekers that may stumble upon our (often heated) dialogue. Honestly, I feel that point would be lost on this thread and that the idea of some kind of Baptist-Catholic unity is all but a prayer on this thread.

My stance on the "purpose" of Catholic posters on this board (or at least the short and sweet of it) is that most of us Catholic Christians are NOT here to tell Baptists (or any other of our Christian brothers and sisters) that they are wrong or in some way in danger of damnation because they aren't Catholic. That view is presumptuous and asanine and I would be ashamed of any Catholic who said as much. We're not here to preach to our brothers and sisters in Christ or to convert them because we believe that they are indeed Christians.

Of course, if all of us saw eye to eye on every single theological concept and interpretation, we wouldn't be broken into thousands of different denominations. We most certainly do hold differing views on some points but (thanks be to God) we are all UNITED in Christ Jesus.

I can only speak for myself, but I think it goes without saying that most of the Catholics who post here do so only to "set the record straight" on the teachings of the Church whenever a particular teaching has been (through ignorance or malice) misstated in someone's post. Most of us are not here to tell someone that they are not a "real" Christian or to down anyone's views.

However, I did want to point out to any non-Baptist Christians reading this thread that, despite what some on this board have stated or implied, there are many, many Baptists throughout the world who are genuine, "Lewisian Mere Christians". In other words, most Baptists in the world do not let petty disagreements divide them from their Christian brothers and sisters of other denominations.

The wonderful Baptist church where I grew up (and where my parents still attend) is a prime example of this. They run a free medical and dental clinic for those in the community who cannot afford medical and/or dental care; they run a home to shelter the homeless; and they host joint services all in conjunction with other Christian churches in town (Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc.). The members of this church (the largest of hundreds of Baptist churches in town) realize that their calling is of a higher nature to serve Christ over their own opinions and egos. They don't let their opinions seperate them from love and service to others with their fellow-Christians.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the narrow-minded views we've all seen espoused in some posts throughout this board are ANYTHING BUT TYPICAL of most of our Baptist brothers and sisters. I would be saddened if anyone got the wrong impression that all Baptists are as anti-Catholic as some on this board. It would be a misrepresentation of the truth.

Those are my thoughts - I'll be expectin' a penny for them now...

"Non nobis Domini non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da Gloriam!" Psalm 115:1 .

God Bless.

IOA,
Deacon's Son

 

>>"Non nobis Domini non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da Gloriam!" Psalm 115:1 >>

Psalm 115:2-7

2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?
3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

 

Hi Hank D,

Thanks for posting more of that Psalm. What a wonderful witness to the glory and majesty of our God!:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

God Bless.

IOA,
Deacon's Son

 

<<Thanks for posting more of that Psalm. What a wonderful witness to the glory and majesty of our God!:>>

Amen.

HankD

 

I'm getting a late lesson in Christian fellowship that I wish I had received ten years ago, when I left the church.

My return to it has been an interesting, enlightening, refreshing and suprising experience. In encountering some Christians who were putting feet to their faith in a mission project in my neck of the woods last summer, I was encouraged to go back to the church. They were so genuine, and so different from the fundamentalist Baptists I had grown up with that I did exactly that, I went back. I visited an Episcopal church near my home and got a genuine shock. Here were people that I had been taught growing up were "just playing church" and were, basically, heretics who didn't "preach the gospel" or "talk about salvation". What a surprise to find that, even though they didn't necessarily do it in the Southern colloquial gospel code language of fundamentalism, they did both (preach the gospel and talk about salvation, that is). Not only that, but there was a depth of meaning and sincerity in their worship that I never experienced in a fundamentalist Baptist church.

From my encounter on this very board with some of the Catholics who post, I was encouraged enough to attend Saturday evening mass at a local Catholic church. This has also been a very enlightening experience, similar to what I experienced in the Episcopal church. My wife loves it, too, so we have gone weekly since we found it.

In addition, again because of people I encountered on this board, I found a Baptist church very close to my house that is absolutely nothing like the one I grew up in. I always suspected that such churches existed in Baptist life because of the criticism leveled at them by my own preacher, but never really tried one out, believing that the apple never falls far from the tree. These Baptists are different. I've been waiting for the harsh, frustrated anger to spew out somewhere, but it hasn't. In fact, this church, which is CBF affiliated, and belongs to another Baptist fellowship as well (not SBC, though it used to be), actually is involved in dialogue and does some ecumenical work with both Catholics and Episcopalians. Their worship also has the depth and sincerity that was missing in the fundamental church I grew up in. There are differences in doctrine and application, but all three groups are focused on Christ and their major interest is in worshipping and serving him.

Perhaps there is hope for Baptists and Catholics to get along and work together to advance the kingdom of God. Apparently, there are some Baptists who are able to see this and willing to do it.

[ March 16, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: kwob02 ]

 

www.wels.net
In the Roman Catholic Church, indulgences are connected with the Sacrament of Penance and with Purgatory. In Roman Catholic teaching, true repentance (penance) requires contrition in the heart, confession with the mouth, and satisfaction. After confession the priest forgives the sinner on condition that satisfaction for past sins (or a particular sin) is made. If satisfaction is not completed while the penitent lives, the remainder of the satisfaction must be made after death, in Purgatory.

At some point in the Middle Ages it became possible to make partial satisfaction by giving money to churches and monasteries, making a pilgrimage, or performing some special service for the church.

The first plenary (full) indulgence, removing all temporal requirements, on record was granted to those who participated in the First Crusade, in 1095. For those who would not or could not participate it was possible to pay money to gain the same indulgence.

In the fifteenth century it became possible to gain (buy or earn) indulgence not only from earthly penalties but also from suffering in Purgatory. It was this teaching, and the abuses that accompanied it, that prompted Martin Luther to publish the 95 Theses in 1517.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
DISPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE

The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart ", is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead. see PURGATORY. It. is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ONE MUST PERFORM THE GOOD WORKS-PRAYERS, ALMS DEEDS, VISISTS TO A CHURCH, ETC.-WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED FOR GRANTING AN UNDULGENCE. For details see "Raccolta".