So simony was Christian doctrine then?
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.
Impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony. The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome. More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states. The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread. Monetary Cost to you $0.00
If Luther was simply calling Tetzel a simoniac, that would have been no problem, since that is what he was. The problem was Luther denying the value of charitable deeds.
impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony.
If I promised to sell you sunshine at midnight, would sunshine actually be saleable?
Not at all.
But if I signed a contract with you agreeing to deliver said goods at said time, I would still be committing fraud.
Tetzel arguably pretended to be able to sell grace (he would likely have denied this characterization), but if something is sold it cannot be grace - by literal definition.
You know where the term "simony" comes from, right?
The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome.
Correct.
More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states.
Does it surprise you that human beings are not perfect, and that they are prone to sin?
The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
The source quite clearly used scare quotes. The scare quotes are right there in your post.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread.
If I obfuscated anything, you should be able to present contrary evidence.
But you haven't.