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.
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
Proof positive that indulgences can still be bought, just not for coin.