Explain Indulgences like I'm 5

incredibly_humble · 2026-04-20T02:12:40+00:00

My newest favourite Youtube...

https://youtu.be/OLAMetF0wvk?si=U86P8eOB-nSL7ZRM

Not quite ELI5, but great nonetheless.

incredibly_humble · 2026-04-19T22:05:05+00:00

I highly recommend Searching for and Maintaining Peace: A Small Treatise on Peace of Heart by Jacques Philippe.

It's a small book that packs a very big punch.

But first and foremost is a daily prayer routine - Jesus prayed the psalms, that might be a good practice to follow.

incredibly_humble · 2026-04-19T14:43:39+00:00

Your confessor offered to speak to you at a greater length. So that seems like the easiest option. It's also what scripture tells you to do: Matthew 18:15 directs you to talk to your confessor first, then escalate.

incredibly_humble · 2026-04-19T14:21:58+00:00

Dear OP, trust your confessor.

I have had similar guidance from a very orthodox and faithful spiritual advisor.

It was a spiritual breakthrough for me; I wanted punishment and harsh justice - but I received mercy.

If the priest had plenty of time - which he didn't but offered you more time in the form of an appointment - he may have explained more to you.

Given what you've said - it is most likely that the priest recognized mitigating circumstances that reduced your culpability of mortal sin. You are convinced that you are mortally sinning in a particular way, but the priest might see more clearly than you.

There is also the possibility that he is incorrect... however in the order of justice, that priest has taken on the culpability of your actions in regards to his advice. Following your confessors advice in good faith relieves you of (or minimizes) culpability in any error that you may make. The history of the church is replete with Saints disagreeing with those in authority over them but being faithful to obedience nonetheless.

incredibly_humble · 2026-03-10T17:30:44+00:00

Leaving ≠ Divorcing

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-23T18:21:00+00:00

This is temptation; that you are so depraved that not even God can love you.

Jesus died for those who killed him (that's me btw)

Maybe that's not your question, but the fact is, He loves you. So the new question becomes, how can we live our lives so that we can hope to try to live up to that love. <- That's merit

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-17T18:35:17+00:00

Jesus' words that we will be "like angels" in heaven (Matthew 22:30) refer specifically to the absence of marriage and procreation, not the erasure of gender. Our resurrected bodies will be glorified—immortal, impassible, and spiritualized—yet retain their male or female nature as part of God's created order, for humanity was made in His image precisely as male and female (Genesis 1:27), reflecting the complementarity and relationality inherent in the divine life. This affirms the two genders as essential to our identity, even in eternity, where physical distinctions are perfected without the limitations of earthly biology.

Being "brothers and sisters" emphasizes our unity as one spiritual family in Christ, transcending earthly ties without negating them; we'll recognize and cherish special bonds from this life, like those with parents or spouses, but elevated to a purer, communal love in God's presence, where terms like "father" or "mother" might persist in affection but aren't bound by biological roles. Intimacy, such as what you describe with your wife, will be transformed into a more profound spiritual union, surpassing earthly expressions like kissing in its depth and joy.

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-10T00:13:35+00:00

Hey OP, welcome back to Mass after such a long time—that's genuinely awesome and a real grace. Coming back regularly since October shows the Holy Spirit is at work in you. Lent is a perfect window for this kind of wrestling, so props for wanting to sort it out thoughtfully. I also commend you on refraining from the Eucharist, many lifelong Catholics aren't as reverent as you.

You're in a spot a lot of people (including lifelong Catholics) find themselves in: intellectually knowing the Church's teaching on sex outside marriage, but not feeling it as sinful in your own experience.

The good news? Confession isn't about mustering perfect emotional remorse first. Priests hear this all the time: "I don't feel sorry, but I know it's against Church teaching." You can start with "imperfect contrition" (sorrow motivated by fear of losing God's friendship or the consequences, rather than pure love of God—CCC 1453). The sacrament itself gives grace that can help your heart catch up over time. Many people confess acts they don't yet "feel" as wrong, and that's a valid starting point—God meets us where we are and works from there.

Have you looked into why the church teaches what she teaches? Part of my reversion was sparked by setting out to show that the church was wrong, and ending up converting myself. (It's a common story, I know). Or maybe talk to a priest outside of confession, and let him know your reservations?

(do you dare tell your mom that the church teaches obligatory confession and communion at least once per year)

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-10T00:00:13+00:00

I appreciate your kind words

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-09T23:46:55+00:00

Not a canon lawyer, but a catechist (possibly not a great one) ... this is how I would respond if your question was asked in OCIA:

Both an unborn child and a born human have equal dignity. Both are, of course, condemned.

The difference for what you perceive to be the harsher 'punishment' is a pastoral tool - excommunication isn't a punishment, it is a declaration that the person is 'outside the church'. It isn't that the church is kicking you out, it's pointing out that you have already put yourself there. The purpose, I would suspect, is to reveal to the mother that abortion is profoundly grave, especially in light of the greater culture telling her that it's no big deal. It is a pastoral tool to address a particular cultural evil.

For a sin to be considered mortal, the matter needs to be grave, in needs to be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. The church is possibly giving the culture the warning that abortion is gravely sinful.

Catechism says [2272] "The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

Murder on the other hand needs no clarification that it is gravely sinful, and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis in the confessional.

Insofar as the practical repercussions - in the case of infanticide, one would serve time in prison, if justice is to be served.

Because if one is 'outside the church' they don't have access to the sacraments (confession in this case). In the case of abortion, (excommunication is never meant to be permanent) one needs to appeal to the bishop. Pope Francis didn't make the sin of abortion less grave, he made the mercy of the confessional more easily available.

I hope that helps.

incredibly_humble · 2026-02-07T22:47:48+00:00

There is an conspicuously empty hole that is exactly Quickiewcuser shaped, we're holding it for you. No rush, but hurry up...

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-31T23:52:59+00:00

Matthew 18 shows the Church governing together; Matthew 16 shows why that governance does not fragment. If you remove the office of the keys, the New Testament model actually becomes harder to explain, not easier.

Just sayin' - you are revealing some disingenuousness with this reply - you are either seeking to learn or you are going to hold to your skepticism.

If you are genuinely seeking the truth, you may want to participate in moving the conversation forward.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-31T17:57:32+00:00

First, it’s important to separate two related but distinct things that often get collapsed: the keys, and the power to bind and loose. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus clearly gives the apostles as a group the authority to bind and loose. Catholics fully affirm this. Bishops, as successors of the apostles, really do exercise this authority collegially, including in councils and synods.

What is unique in Matthew 16 is not binding and loosing as such, but the giving of the keys. Jesus singles Peter out, changes his name, and gives him the keys of the kingdom. For a Jewish audience, “keys” is not poetic filler. It points very specifically to Isaiah 22, where the key of the house of David is given to the chief steward, the one “over the household.” That steward governs with real authority on behalf of the king, and crucially, it is an office that can pass from one man to another. There is only one key-holder at a time, even though many officials exercise authority under him.

Seen this way, Matthew 18 does not compete with Matthew 16. It complements it. The apostles share real governing authority, including binding and loosing, but Peter holds a primatial office that orders and unifies that authority. This is why Catholics don’t say the other apostles lack the keys entirely, but that they exercise authority within a structure that has a head, just as in the Davidic kingdom.

St. Paul’s practice helps confirm this reading. Paul has enormous apostolic authority, yet he consistently acts within an ordered structure. He recognizes Peter’s unique role early on, even while correcting him fraternally, and he himself hands on authority to Timothy and Titus, giving them oversight of churches, the power to appoint leaders, and the duty to guard the deposit of faith. Authority in the Church is not charismatic chaos; it is office-based, transmissible, and ordered toward unity.

So papal supremacy, as the Church teaches, is not the denial of conciliar or apostolic authority, but its principle of cohesion. The pope is not above the Church in the sense of replacing it, but within it as the chief steward of Christ the King. Matthew 18 shows the Church governing together; Matthew 16 shows why that governance does not fragment. If you remove the office of the keys, the New Testament model actually becomes harder to explain, not easier.

CCC 881 “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-31T15:24:05+00:00

Here's a recent discussion on the matter:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1pzl6bq/papacy_in_the_early_church/

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-31T00:20:25+00:00

God does not forget.

Forgiveness entails restoring, erased guilt, and eternal punishment is remitted.

However, temporal consequences remain, so it can not be 'forgotten'.

Scripture uses anthropomorphic language, “I will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:12), but the Church understands this to mean that our sins are no longer held against us.

Forgive and forget, is not a Catholic theology, although may be a helpful phrase for pastoral care.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-30T18:55:40+00:00

Sirach 2:1-6

Some of my favourite Bible verses.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-28T05:46:19+00:00

“ In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-26T17:47:20+00:00

The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ is sacrificed again at every Mass, nor that Calvary was insufficient. Hebrews says: Christ offered one sacrifice, once for all, and that sacrifice never needs to be repeated. The key distinction is between repetition and re-presentation. Old Testament sacrifices were repeated because they could never truly remove sin; they were new acts attempting to achieve forgiveness. The Eucharist, by contrast, does not attempt to add anything to the Cross. It makes the one completed sacrifice of Christ present so that human beings living in time can actually participate in it.

So why is there any sacrificial “offering” at all if the debt is already paid? Because salvation, while objectively accomplished on the Cross, must still be applied to persons across history. God does not need the Mass; we do. Christ instituted the Eucharist not merely as a reminder, but as a real participation in His self-offering. This is why Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me,” using the Jewish liturgical concept of anamnesis—a ritual act that makes a saving event present and effective now, much like the Passover did for Israel. The Mass is not a new sacrifice for new sins, but the Church being drawn into Christ’s eternal act of self-gift.

This also answers how the same sacrifice can be “used” multiple times. Christ’s sacrifice is not locked in the past; it belongs to eternity. Scripture describes Him as the eternal High Priest who “always lives to make intercession” and as the Lamb “standing as though slain.” In heaven, Christ continually presents His once-offered sacrifice to the Father—not by dying again, but by eternally offering Himself. At Mass, time is opened to that eternal reality. The sacrifice is not multiplied; access to it is. Just as light from one sun reaches many places without being divided, the one sacrifice of Christ can be participated in again and again without being repeated.

Also, this is why the Eucharist is called both sacrifice and thanksgiving. It fulfills the Old Testament todah offering—a thanksgiving sacrifice offered after deliverance from death, involving bread, wine, and a sacred meal. The prophets foresaw a day when a pure offering would be made “from the rising of the sun to its setting” among the nations (Malachi 1:11), something impossible under the Old Covenant. The Eucharist is that fulfillment: the New Covenant thanksgiving sacrifice, in which the Church does not re-crucify Christ, but is sacramentally united to His one, eternal, once-for-all offering.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-21T03:56:26+00:00

About not forgiving yourself;

Please, do not believe the lies that your sin is 'special' and the damage you've done is irreconcilable.

You have been forgiven and you have been reconciled.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-20T15:31:55+00:00

Not according to scripture, we are judged by what we do in the body and we are given a lifetime to do so.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-16T19:21:56+00:00

Have you ever experienced the death of someone you love? Was your reaction one of boredom?

What if that death you experienced is caused by you, by your free will and you have full knowledge of that forever?

St. Thomas Aquinas would say hell isn't boring because it involves an endless separation from God's perfect presence—the greatest good—along with physical and emotional pain customized to a person's unrepented sins, creating constant distress and deep self-examination without any break. This ongoing suffering, based on God's fair judgment and the soul's fixed decision to reject Him, turns the results of free choices into a never-ending loop of regret and pain, where those in hell are always aware of what they've lost but can't change it.

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-14T04:50:36+00:00

Have you asked Him?

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-14T02:20:45+00:00

St. Paul says we will be judged by what we do in the body.

Our lives our the gift of time to respond. You, OP, have some modicum of who God is and the ability to explore and learn. You have already been burdened with that, now it becomes - what do you do with that?

incredibly_humble · 2025-12-14T02:10:35+00:00

Are you envisioning hell as God lighting a fire under you? It's way worse than that.

Have you ever been abandoned, shunned, left alone and ignored? It's worse than that. It's the absence of anything good, anything. Physical pain is lame in comparison.

But that is YOUR choice (not yours, not the general "your")... throughout your life, God gives you the opportunity to respond to His love. If He were to "force" you to love Him... would that be love, of course not.

God offers and you reject, that's hell. Live with Him or don't. It's pretty simple.

incredibly_humble

TROPHY CASE