So you disagree with this:
Yet not until the question of the "sale" of indulgences arose in Luther's diocese did the issue acquire "legs," as the journalists say.
The "selling" of indulgences occurred in the neighboring diocese of Mainz; it was the spill-over into the Luther's diocese and into his confessional that brought the issue to his attention. The twenty-three year-old archbishop of Mainz had allowed indulgences to be preached in his diocese in exchange for a "cut" in the revenue raised. The money was supposed to go to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In fact, the archbishop needed the money to pay a fee to the Roman Curia for a dispensation allowing him to hold three dioceses at once.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences? Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
The source uses the word "sale" and "selling" in scare quotes, demonstrating that indulgences cannot legitimately be sold.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences?
A schism is a deliberate breaking of the unity of the Church. Luther did nothing wrong in opposing Tetzel's simony. He did wrong in denying the authority of the Church to define Christian doctrine.
Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
You forgot to add "when did you stop beating your wife?" to your string of rhetorical fallacies.
Anyone in 1517 who believed himself to be purchasing an indulgence was committing a mortal sin that rendered any indulgence for himself impossible, and anyone who believed himself to be selling an indulgence (an impossibility) was likewise committing a mortal sin.
The same was true before 1517 and is true down to the present day. I intend to avail myself of the plenary indulgence for the Year of Faith this week. Monetary cost to me: $0.00.