Indulgences to get out of purgatory was, in fact, declared. The fact that the Church rescinded the policy 100+ years later stands as a testimony to that fact. I suppose by then they probably had enough to pay for the huge debt the construction of the Vatican placed them in.
This is another case where the appearance of seeking to misunderstand raises its head, even if it turns out to be faulty. Purgatory is MAJORLY different from Hell.
Nope. Don't obfuscate the fact. My argument isn't about the theological differences of hell and purgatory. My argument is that the Pope did, in fact, make a pronouncement from the Chair of Peter in the matter of paying for indulgences. 100+ years later another Pope rescinded that doctrine from the Chair. You can't be infallible if your going to make mistakes.
You haven't yet stated something clearly enough or accurately enough for me to obfuscate it.
YOU may not understand the difference between buying salvation from hell and buying a shorter stint in Purgatory, but there's a HUGE difference. You cannot (truthfully) say on the basis of Tetzel that we offered salvation for sale. Indulgences do not have and never did have anything to do with Hell and therefore anything to do with salvation from Hell.
Consequently your initial charge was WRONG! And just because you were in error about a critical part of the doctrine does not mean I was obfuscating.
If the difference between being assured of going to heaven but not just yet, and going to hell for ever is trivial to you, well okay, then it's understandable, though still wrong, to say I'm obfuscating.
And what exactly do you mean by saying that the policy was rescinded 100 years later. I'm going to be going for a plenary indulgence this week. That's an indulgence to get out of Purgatory altogether (assuming I get run over by a truck right after I get the indulgence and before I get on the Religion Forum and therefore sin again.)
What may have been rescinded was the money part. Now if you're going to tell me that a Pope reared back and said, "I declare and define that indulgences can be purchased for cash or credit," I'm not going to believe you without evidence. I want to see the text of the declaration and definition,and the text of the later Popes declaration that he declared and defined as follows: "Oops!"
This would be different from to Pope saying, say, in a letter, "Yo! Tetzel, why don't you try SELLING the indulgences? Mortgage payment is coming due again and the price of hummingbird tongues is going up." That, or something like it, may have come from the Pope but that is not the kind of thing that infallibility is about. That's not an obfuscation, that's the way it is.
But indulgences, including plenary indulgences, still exist and have not been rescinded. So you've got to come up with a "Declare and define" about MONEY and indulgences for your argument to have anything to do with what we mean by infallibility, I think.
And I don't obfuscate, not intentionally and not knowingly. AND, further, I'm not going to be on the religion forum for a while. So I guess we're done on this one.
My argument is that the Pope did, in fact, make a pronouncement from the Chair of Peter in the matter of paying for indulgences. 100+ years later another Pope rescinded that doctrine from the Chair. You can’t be infallible if your going to make mistakes.
= = =
Now, Harley, get a script or score card or SOMETHING and keep all these convoluted rubber history fantasies STRAIGHT!
You should know
that Pope A was for it before he was against it.
And that Pope B was against it before he was for it.
And that Pope C went askew on a tangent straddling the fence until he was quite sore in delicate areas.
And that Pope D acted like a pox on all their fantasies and created plenty of his own.
All this, of course, in an ivy encrusted edifice claiming to be a seamless consistent consensual whole with the doctrines and dogmas complete and perfect in what . . . 36AD?
I realize it’s hard to stifle the guffaws at such silly notions but we really must try harder. I mean, the guffaws will be counted and counted as sadistic when they reach above 0.000001 by count.
Of course the sadistic cheekiness in telling God He’s all wet and the magicsterical knows better how to do things is a whole ‘nother issue but . . . we know that fact is not going to get very far in any discussion with the RC edifice reps . . . so why bother.
Sigh.