What Really Were Orthodox Indulgences?

The ins and outs surrounding Orthodox indulgences are shrouded in mystery. They were a relatively late “innovation” (of sorts) that have fallen (mostly) into disuse. To the uninitiated, it would seem that Orthodoxy had syncretized with Roman Catholicism and that only recently righted their ship—thereby calling into question the indefectibility of the Church on this specific point. However, once one gets through the nitty gritty, what becomes apparent is that an Orthodox indulgence really had nothing to do with a purchase of merits in order to avoid suffering after death (whether in Purgatory or a temporary stay in Hades) similar to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Rather, such indulgences were in effect the normalizing of giving alms in exchange for attaining to communion of a bishop other than one’s local bishop. In effect, alms purchased absolution and communion from either the local Patriarch or the Patriarch of Jerusalem specifically (after a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher). As for one’s status after death, the said indulgences commended one to the mercy of God as there was no transaction of merits or guaranteed “silver bullet” that would confer salvation to the recipient. So unremarkable are these indulgences, they are literally given in oral form at every single Russian Orthodox funeral to this day.

The Lack of Medieval Indulgences in the Early Church. As I cover in much more thorough detail elsewhere, the early Church followed the Jewish and Apostolic belief that praying for the dead was efficacious (Bar 3:4-5, 2 Macc 12:39-45, 2 Tim 1:16-18), and that giving alms conferred spiritual benefit on behalf of oneself (Acts 10:4, 31; Tobit 4:9-11, 12:9; Sir 35:4, 3:30; Luke 11:39-42) and others (Luke 7:2-5). If there was any sort of “treasury,” it was not of merits per se, but of alms. (Sir 29:12; Tobit 12:8; Matt 6:19-20; Didache 4:7-11) The Church also accepted that good works in general as well as eucharistic commemoration served the same purpose, for the living and the dead. So, in effect, doing good helped oneself and helped others. Alms were just easier to quantify.

Canonically, “indulgences” were nothing more than letters of recommendation from living martyrs (i.e. confessors) asking a bishop not to hold a crime (such as adultery or apostasy) against a living person. This is because apostasy carried with it a great penance. The penance was lessened due to the request, if the bishop was swayed by the document. This practice made sense (as people are often swayed by good recommendations) and it jived with the more corporate nature of early confession which had public confession and penance, (Acts 17:17-19; cf 1 John 1:9; James 5:15-16; Didache Chapter 4, 14; Ignatius, Philadelphians, Chapter 3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 13, Paragraph 5) with absolution given by a priest. (Cyprian, On the Lapsed, Paragraph 28; Apostolic Tradition 3:5; Ambrose, On Repentance, Book I, Paragraphs 79-80; Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 10) In some respect, the restoration of, or “absolution” given to, a repentant individual was a communal process, fitting for a “nation of priests.” (Ex 19:6, cf Is 61:6, 1 Pet 2:5, Rev 1:6) The changes in confession and penance from being public to being mostly private are not the subject of this treatment.

Saint Cyprian ran into resistance amongst those that did not like his discerning approach towards indulgences. In what may have been an intentional slandering of his opposition, Cyprian wrote that they argued that the “merits of martyrs and works of the righteous” were efficacious on the petitioners’ behalf, thereby mitigating against the need to scrutinize the worthiness of their “letters of reference.” (The Lapsed, Paragraph 17) Unintentionally decrying what would later become the doctrine of the treasury of merits (i.e. that the merits of saints are inescapably applied to petitioners with a written indulgence), Cyprian wrote:

The Lord alone can have mercy. He alone can bestow pardon for sins which have been committed against Himself, who bare our sins, who sorrowed for us, whom God delivered up for our sins. Man cannot be greater than God, nor can a servant remit or forego by his indulgence what has been committed by a greater crime against the Lord, lest to the person lapsed this be moreover added to his sin…But if any one, by an overhurried haste, rashly thinks that he can give remission of sins to all, or dares to rescind the Lord’s precepts, not only does it in no respect advantage the lapsed, but it does them harm. (The Lapsed, Paragraph 17, 18)

Without getting into all the details, the following offers a summary of how early Christian beliefs contrast with the medieval Roman Catholic view of indulgences:

Early Church Practices

Roman Catholic Indulgences

1. Almsgiving/good works/prayers/Eucharist help both the giver and the “not very bad” after death, the latter being able to attain to a “full remission of sins” sooner 2. Alms/prayers/works/Eucharist are performed by both laity and clergy 3. The degree alms/prayers/works/Eucharist help is mysterious 4. “Certificates” from confessors and receiving clergy vouched for a living individual to sway a bishop to lessen or remove a penance 5. The degree certificates help is up to the discretion of the receiving clergyman in accepting their recommendation and determining the petitioner’s intent 6. Blanket “letters of reference” condemned

1. Help both the giver and the “not very bad” in Purgatory after death, both being able to attain to either a partial or full remission of “temporal punishment” 2. Performed only by bishops with Pope’s permission through “the exercise of the keys” (i.e. Pope’s sole discretion) 3. The degree they help is either partial or plenary (i.e. complete) solely at the discretion of the bishop/Pope 4. Granted by bishops/Pope, not acting as letters of recommendation, but rather enacting a transfer of merits from the Church’s treasury 5. Solely at the discretion of the bishop/Pope without regard whether the saints would vouch for the individual and simply assumes good intent from the recipient 6. Saints’ approval is assumed

The above list is important because after reviewing what Orthodox indulgences were, it will be clearer to situate how they were more in accord with early Church practice than the Roman Catholic practice which really only shared a name with something from antiquity and little else.

The Development of Orthodox Indulgences. In the English language there is little research on the topic. With help from a priest, I was turned onto two articles from Nikolaos Chrissidis: “Between Forgiveness and Indulgence: Funerary Prayers of Absolution in Russia” and “A Cartel that Lasts for Centuries: The Case of the Eastern Orthodox Church Indulgences.” Though a tad sensationalistic in their content, from these articles and the preceding background one can get a good handle on the question.

Beginning during the 15^th century, certainly from contact with the Roman Catholics, “absolution certificates” started being made and subsequently sold. The certificates originated among the Greeks but within two centuries spread throughout the entire Orthodox world. (“Between Forgiveness,” p. 268) They had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins after death, but rather, the forgiveness of sins in this life at confession (i.e. second baptism). A good example of their content is an absolution certificate issued by Patriarch Dositheus II (of “Confession of Dositheus” fame):

Our modesty, by the Grace and the gift and the authority of the All Holy and Life-beginning Spirit given by our Savior Jesus Christ to His Divine and Sacred Holy Disciples and Apostles, that they should bind and loose the sins of humans, having told them: “Receive the Holy Spirit If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain them, they are retained.” [John 20:22-23], And again, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” [Matthew 18:18]. And because this divine Grace was transferred from them to us one after the other, we regard as forgiven [echomen synkechoremenon] our spiritual child [name of recipient], in anything that he or she as a human has sinned, and has transgressed in the face of God, by word or deed or thought, voluntarily or involuntarily, and with all his/ her senses, and if he or she be under the curse or the excommunication of an archbishop or of a priest or of his/her mother or father, or if he or she has fallen under his/her own anathema, or he or she has disobeyed an oath, or if at various times, being human, he or she has been pierced through with other sins, and has confessed these [sins] to his/her spiritual fathers, and has accepted with [all his/her] heart the penance [imposed by them] and has eagerly sought to fulfill it. Therefore, we absolve him/her of the guilt and the bond of all such [sins], and we regard him/her free and forgiven [eleutheron echomen kai synkechoremenon], by the omnipotent authority and grace of the Divine and venerated Spirit. And whatever he or she has left unconfessed, because of forgetfulness, all these may the merciful God forgive him/her, for His philanthropy [love of humanity, lit “philanthropian”]. By the intercessions of Our All blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and of the Holy, Glorious and Most-Laudable Apostle James the Adelphotheos [Brother of God], and first hierarch of Jerusalem, and of all Saints. Amen. (Ibid, p. 269-270)

While one may be caught up by the language of binding and loosing to forgive sins as if the bishop has power to almost do anything, the certificate gives a list of sins, specifies that these sins are absolved if they were confessed to one’s spiritual father and the recipient has performed/is presently performing penance. In other words, the certificate does almost nothing as it presumes the individual is doing what an Orthodox Christian ought to be already doing. It makes no mention of forgiving sins after death. No wonder they were relatively inexpensive.

The Practical Nature of Indulgences. The preceding demands the question why one would want something that says the obvious in writing? In short, it was essentially no different than the situation surrounding Apiarius, Athanasius, the followers of Pelagius, Origen, those who resisted the Henotikon, the iconodules, and many others. When denied communion from their local bishop for a good or bad reason (as the preceding examples contain both the righteous and heretics/disobedient), one always had the ability to appeal upon to their Patriarch or even a foreign Patriarch and at least enter into their communion. The “absolution certificate” of Dositheus II simply expressed that the pilgrim who visited the Holy Land is entered into his communion conditionally: that they are in good standing with their spiritual father.

As for the local bishop, he is essentially bypassed by Jerusalem’s Patriarch. During this era, this was not always occurring over reason of doctrine. It was a standard practice to excommunicate people for not paying their taxes (due to bishops also acting as functionaries/ethnarchs of the Ottoman government). For example, “fur-makers who had previously ignored rules established by the patriarchate regarding their trade” were excommunicated until given an indulgence by Patriarch Meletios of Jerusalem and several other bishops. (“A Cartel,” p. 13) Patriarch Neophytos VII of Constantinople alongside the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, with eight other bishops, forgave a guild of shoemakers. (Ibid.) Chrissidis asserts that the more bishops one had signing onto an indulgence, the more prestigious it was. He implies that this was a response to a superstitious belief that it made the indulgence more potent. I personally find this doubtful. Guilds in tax trouble likely needed as many jurisdictions as possible to sign these documents because it means one can conduct business more easily being in good standing somewhere in the Church. The more places, the better.

Indulgences Being a “Court of Appeals” For Matters of Personal Penance. Due to these indulgences seemingly combining Church with civil and financial functions, one can see their lack of focus on what occurs after death. After death it was anyone’s guess how God would judge one’s tangential communion with a foreign bishop. The “absolution certificate” really wasn’t designed to address this eventuality. It merely formalized on paper a practice (of admitting foreigners into communion) that has already been occurring throughout Church history. As Chrissidis admits, “the letter makes a distinction between confessed and unconfessed sins: the former are remitted, but final absolution for the latter is reserved for God.” (“Between Forgiveness,” p. 270)

Nevertheless, the “absolution certificate” was colloquially called an “indulgence.” Dositheus put the matter very plainly: “Whoever gives aspra [money], gets indulgences; whoever does not should never get one even if they are available.” (“A Cartel,” p. 8)

Due to the financial aspect (“alms”) of these indulgences, bishops began competing with one another to get in on the business. Preventing chaos, the Church initially settled upon two jurisdictions having the sole right to issue them. One was Constantinople, which made sense as their jurisdiction at this juncture covered the entire Balkans and all of Turkey. Another was Jerusalem, as this was undeniably the most important pilgrimage site of the whole Orthodox Christian world. Dositheus expressed that the privilege was denied to anyone other than a Patriarch (Ibid., p. 20), a belief codified by Constantinople 1709. (Ibid., p. 21-22) This synod specified only the Jerusalem Patriarch had “universal jurisdiction” when it came to indulgences. This in effect preserved the privilege of individual Patriarchs to be the highest court of appeal within their jurisdiction and it prevented chaos from having endless appeals outside their jurisdiction, settling upon Jerusalem as the only Patriarchate that can take interpatriarchal appeals (for communion and absolution) in reference to indulgences. In effect, it was like a Canon 3 of Serdica applied to Jerusalem and indulgences, instead of to Rome and ecclesiastical business.

A later Constantinopolitan council in 1727 issued the following decree:

We confess that the authority to absolve sins, which, when given in writing to the pious, the Eastern Church of Christ calls synchorochartia, and the Latins call indulgences (indoulnketzas), is given by Christ in the Holy Church, and that their use is one of the most salutary refuges. [We confess] that these synchorochartia are given in the whole Catholic Church by all four most holy Patriarchs, of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. [We confess] that they are given frugally and with spiritual reproach, and to whom and whenever is appropriate, in the exact manner that the Eastern Church follows in such matters, and not in the manner of the Latins, through which develops immeasurable license and misuse, from which [license and misuse] everybody remembers what evils followed in the Western Church. And to say that only the Pope has the exclusive authority to grant such [letters of absolution] is an obvious lie and a result of the absurd innovation of the Latins. (“Between Forgiveness,” p. 271-272)

Surely, the preceding decree does nothing to address present day confusion—as it equates Roman Catholic indulgences with Patriarchal ones (Moscow no longer had a Patriarch at this juncture). However, it makes it clear the juridical nature of the certificates, as they belong to Patriarchs as they are the highest court of local appeals.

Some Differences Between Roman and Orthodox Indulgences. Chrissidis summarizes the following differences between East and West indulgences from Dositheus:

1) All patriarchs, bishops, and spiritual fathers, not just the pope, share in the power of the keys, and therefore can offer absolution of sin. 2) Christ’s sacrifice was the ultimate source of salvation, not any purported treasury of the church. 3) Since the patriarchs are in “some extraordinary sense” the successors to the Apostles, they have the authority to issue synchorochartia not only to those who confessed to patriarchs in person, but to any believer. 4) A patriarch’s absolution letter is not a second absolution of sins (supplementary to one received from a confessor), but rather a more official certificate of repentance, granted as an example for the edification of others by the memory of sins (in other words, the certificate serves as a reminder of sinful behavior for which absolution has been granted). Such a letter eliminates any penance owed, especially “if in any occasion it has not been fulfilled,” but presupposes true contrition. 5) The Eastern Church accepts “satisfaction” in penance, but not in a sense that lends itself to a doctrine of purgatory. (Ibid., p. 272)

The embolden is an interesting because it delineates 1. The official nature of the indulgence for the edification of others (i.e. it’s a piece of paperwork with ecclesiastical as well as practical import) and 2. By eliminating penance it in fact overturns local episcopal discipline (though not necessarily spiritual discipline, as Dositheus’ own indulgence makes clear). The local jurisdiction, by ascribing to Constantinople 1709, essentially accepted that this could be done.

While this may seem bizarre to many Orthodox Christians in the West or those reared in the Russian tradition, among the Greeks sometimes the faithful confess to ascetics and oftentimes go find a priest to then get absolution. Worshipping within the Slavic tradition, I have no firsthand experience of this, but I presume the priest giving absolution can modify things. So, in effect, the final say in modifying matters is the Patriarch. This makes sense supposing such a peculiarly Greek custom which really seems to take James 5:16 to heart. This is probably why a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where one can acquire such an indulgence, was likely often prescribed by spiritual fathers to circumvent the local bishop/ethnarch. In effect, Jerusalem became a place of “sanctuary” from the harsh realities of the Turkish Yoke where not paying something like the salt tax resulted in excommunication.

Orthodox Indulgences for the Dead. With people running around with indulgences from Jerusalem, in Russia a peculiar custom took hold. In short, they began modifying the language of these indulgences and then added additional prayers for the dead, writing these down on a piece of paper and placing it in the dead person’s hand. I imagine the custom arose from loved ones placing their relative’s Jerusalem indulgences placed in their hand during the funeral. The Russian indulgence for the dead, which was not strictly monetized, amounted to little more than well wishing:

We, N.N. bishop and priest here in N do hereby acknowledge and witness that [the deceased] actually lived among us as a genuine, righteous Greek Christian. Though he sometimes sinned, he nevertheless repented of his sins, and received absolution and Holy Communion for forgiveness. He revered God and His saints, and fasted and prayed fittingly. With me, N.N., his confessor, he was fully reconciled, and I forgave him all his sins. Therefore, we have issued him this passport to show to St. Peter and the other saints that he may be admitted without hindrance to the gates of bliss. (Ibid., p. 262)

As one can see, it had nothing in common with either Roman Catholic or Jerusalem indulgences. No local clergyman has his penance bypassed. Rather, he is the one essentially “well-wishing” on a piece of paper, hoping that at the pearly gates Saint Peter would take seriously the appeal of the spiritual father on behalf of the spiritual child. It almost comes across as mild superstition than a serious theological practice. When Saint Filaret of Moscow heard of these, it was essentially explained to him that these were merely prayers. (Ibid., p. 266)

To this day, a similar indulgence prayer is read out during Russian Orthodox funerals, serving the same purpose without a prop. It prays for mercy even if excommunicated or anathematized, presuming upon repentance “with a grievous heart.” (Ibid., p. 264) It is a powerful sounding prayer when heard in person.

The practice was not popular in Greece, though one Greek prayer (put into writing and placed into the dead person’s hand) specifies that while the clergy “absolve them of the guilt,” it still implores:

all merciful Lord Jesus Christ, our God, may your immeasurable mercy and your incomparable philanthropy be victorious, and may You not overlook your own creation so that it is swallowed by destruction. But hearken unto us. (Ibid., p. 275-276)

Obviously, there is no belief that the indulgence effects anything. It’s a prayer for forgiveness. Nothing more. Unlike the absolution certificate, such an indulgence offers nothing concrete.

A Summary of Early Church Practice vis a vis Roman Catholic and Orthodox Indulgences. With the preceding in mind, one can now go about contextualizing the practice of Orthodox indulgences:

Early Church Practices	Roman Catholic Indulgences	Orthodox Indulgences
1. Almsgiving/good works/prayers/Eucharist help both the giver and the “not very bad” after death, the latter being able to attain to a “full remission of sins” sooner 2. Alms/prayers/works/Eucharist are performed by both laity and clergy 3. The degree alms/prayers/works/Eucharist help is mysterious 4. “Certificates” from confessors and receiving clergy vouched for a living individual to sway a bishop to lessen or remove a penance 5. The degree certificates help is up to the discretion of receiving clergymen in accepting their recommendation and determining the petitioners’ intent 6. Blanket “letters of reference” condemned	1. Help both the giver and the “not very bad” in Purgatory after death, both being able to attain to either a partial or full remission of “temporal punishment” 2. Performed only by bishops with Pope’s permission through “the exercise of the keys” (i.e. Pope’s sole discretion) 3. The degree they help is either partial or plenary (i.e. complete) solely at the discretion of the bishop/Pope 4. Granted by bishops/Pope, not acting as letters of recommendation, but rather enacting a transfer of merits from the Church’s treasury 5. Solely at the discretion of the bishop/Pope without regard whether the saints would vouch for the individual and simply assumes good intent from the recipient 6. Saints’ approval is assumed	1. Grants the living absolution and dead attain an unspecified amount of mercy 2. Performed only by Patriarchs through “the exercise of the keys” 3. The degree they help is mysterious 4. Granted in exchange for alms to overrule a local cleric’s discipline 5. At the discretion of the Patriarchs and simply assumes good intent and is invalid if the one vouched for was not repentant 6. Not a transfer of merits or a letter of reference, but rather an appellate overruling of a lower cleric’s judgment against an individual which is invalid if the petitioner was actually at fault

A few points are worth teasing out. The Orthodox as far as I can tell could only purchase indulgences for themselves personally, though the Russian custom probably was to request these certificates for every funeral. The fact that one could not buy the absolution certificates (in particular) for others mitigates against the Church playing any role in shifting merits on a metaphysical ledger.

The key area where early Church practice differs with Orthodox indulgences is point 4. Saint Cyprian would have abhorred the practice. Legalistically, it works because technically if Cyprian consented to his Patriarch having the capacity to overrule a local penance, then there would technically be no issue. Points 5-6 merely piggyback off this, as the built in protection for the document being invalid if one has not fulfilled penance with one’s spiritual father guards against its theoretical misuse. However, for all practical intents and purposes its little different than the Roman Catholic indulgence which by virtue of alms simply presumes good enough intent to grant the document.

Conclusion. The existence of Orthodox indulgences is a stain in the recent history of Orthodoxy, but not because the documents themselves are theologically troublesome. Further, they met a real need—those excommunicated for not paying some sort of pre-modern form of taxation should have some sort of opportunity to correct matters. However, one cannot help but perceive that in reality Orthodox indulgences were effectually a blessed extortion racket meant to deal with the sacralist nature of the Orthodox Church under Turkish occupation.

Interestingly, it was the Russian adoption of the practice which was both the most superstitious, but also the most correct. Indulgences served the function of prayer. This is why the practice continues in Russian Orthodox funerals, simply without a fee and undocumented.

The question is how can an extortion racket attain to a Pan-Orthodox reception? The conciliar statement (Constantinople 1727) on the question does not mandate the extortion racket, but rather that:

…they are given frugally and with spiritual reproach, and to whom and whenever is appropriate, in the exact manner that the Eastern Church follows in such matters, and not in the manner of the Latins, through which develops immeasurable license and misuse…

Constantinople (1838) even explicitly banned indulgences having a price, condemning the Roman Catholics for the

horrid and unheard-of evil usage, originating in arrogance, by which the bishops of Rome employ the most holy most sacred, and most awesome articles of belief of the sacred Christian Faith as a means to raise money.

In effect, the “dogmatic” stance on Orthodox indulgences (though fallen into disuse such as the office of Deaconess) is that they are given with spiritual sensitivity and appropriately, and not in the commoditized “manner of the Latins” “as a means to raise money.” So, while this was patently ignored by even the people who signed onto the above decrees, similar to numerous ecclesiastical denunciations of simony over the years, all this indicates that while the Church had financially corrupt bishops, they recognized correct doctrine on the question.

My final closing thoughts are that my conclusions here are tentative. There is not a lot published on the question in English. My hope is that what is covered here makes an obscure subject a little clearer.