Posted on 10/02/2018 5:51:36 PM PDT by marshmallow
I will check out the Tetzel CE entry when I have more time...
In other words, you still can’t prove your false claim. Okay, Blasey Ford, you had your chance. You failed. It was inevitable.
Sure Vlad!
No, he was never imprisoned, but basically later imprisoned himself in depression.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, which labors to clear his name of various charges, and affirms him as a "scholastically-trained theologican" "a bachelor of theology" who, after the publication of Luther's 95 thesis published responses, and was promoted to the doctorate.
And states that, based upon Tetzel's writing if not his preaching, "his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless."
For as I myself said , referencing the work of esteemed Catholic Church historian Hubert Jedin (and John Patrick Dolan), what one could purchase was "a confession certificate, by virtue of which one could confess to any priest at any desired time in his later life sins reserved to the pope." And that "since what was actually given in response to a donation was a confession certificate, which required penitent confession...in order to receive the indulgence, then technically it is asserted that Rome never authorized the actual sale of indulgences. Meaning that Rome sold a conditional promise of remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.'' And that this money was partly in order for a Bishop to repay money loaned to him in order to illegally have pastoral office.
What the CE faults Tetzel for was that "regarding indulgences for the dead," "he accepted the mere school opinion of a few obscure writers, which overstepped the contents of papal indulgence Bulls," and in this abuse "Tetzel is in no way to be exonerated."
The CE also informs,
Luther's agitation having frustrated further efforts to popularize the granted indulgence of eight years, Tetzel, deserted by the public, broken in spirit, wrecked in health, retired to his monastery at Leipzig in 1518. Here in the middle of January, 1519, he had to face the bitter reproaches and unjust incriminations of Carl von Meltitz. It was at this time that Luther magnanimously penned a letter in which he tries to console him by declaring "that the agitation was not that of his [Tetzel's] creation, but that the child had an entirely different father". Tetzel died soon after, received an honourable burial, and was interred before the high altar of the Dominican church at Leipzig.
Therefore we see that Rome, which historically exhorted that the one duty of the multitude was to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors, via its highest authority, provided for and permitted the preaching of the offer of a plenary indulgence for those who contributed money and made contrite confession, while basically tolerating abuse of it, till Luther made it an unavoidable issue. Thus Rome, could profit from the long term abuse of such, while at the same time disavow sanction of it.
Note also that I am quoting from Catholic sources, partly in condescension to RCs, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, while often providing testimony than RCs dislike, is overall a biased largely apologetical source. And of course to varying degrees, this charge can be laid at the feet of Protestant sources, but btwn both there is reliable historical truth to be found.
And often the premise of Catholics attacking the Reformation is to anachronistically read certain teaching solidly established by Trent and successors as being likewise established before that, as is the case with the canon of Scripture .
And which may relate to teaching on indulgences. While the CE explains Tetzel as having "accepted the mere school opinion of a few obscure writers, which overstepped the contents of papal indulgence Bulls," and which was condemned shortly later by Cardinal Cajetan, yet it that this was an interpretation prior to that of unclear teaching seems to be the case. From many old sources as here we have this quote from Leo X, "that the dead and the living who truly obtain these indulgences, are immediately freed from the punishment due to their actual sins according to Divine justice, which allows these indulgences to be granted and obtained. "
And from Tetzel's thesis:
That though the pope hath not the power of the keys over the souls in purgatory, he may apply a jubilee by way of suffrage, and that there is no reason to doubt that a soul may go to Heaven the very moment that the alms is cast into the chest...That although the buying of indulgences be not commanded, yet it is advised; and of this the people ought to be put in mind.
But the key phrase is "obtained."
.
You can just take off your blinders and present evidence of what you claim.
Oh, wait. You can’t. There is no evidence for what you claim.
hmmm... maybe it is simply...
Actually requiring donations for "gifts" is the way many Christian "non-profits" operate, meaning you will not obtain the offer unless you give the donation, and or sometimes shipping and handling charges, but such claim not to be selling anything, though in essence they are,
Likewise indulgences. What is offered requires something of the one who obtains it, and as explained, in the case at issue of Pope Leo X the offer was the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin for those who gave a donation, with the "shipping and handling" analogy being that of presumed contrite confession to a priest sometime before death in order to actually receive what the offer promised.
Thus it is not called selling indulgences, but in essence it was selling (providing something of value in exchange for something of value) a conditional promise of an indulgence, which was itself valid, and nothing new, but led to abuses.
Well, I think relative few deny some hierarchy knew how and why the money was collected, but as i remember a priest saying, "It is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission."
Sure, Vlad.
You know NOBODY here ever said or even implied that there was anything "officially" published by the Vatican that approved of the abuse of the Indulgences scheme. That wasn't the point at all. Instead it was the tacit and, sometimes overt approval of accepting money in exchange for indulgences granted by the Pope. I don't think anyone asserted that buying an indulgence for ones' sin did away with confession and penance, either. However, buying a loved one out of Purgatory's suffering was also an advocated use of Indulgences.
I personally don't believe that such a place exists or that there is a "Treasury of Merit" where all the extraneous good works done by Jesus, Mary and the Saints are banked and can be distributed by the Pope as credit to another's "grace tank" to help their soul make it to heaven sooner. Get rid of the unscriptural idea of Purgatory and you don't need all the extra stuff that goes along with it.
Absent from the body, present with the Lord, as Paul put it...and, no, it wasn't because he was martyred for Jesus' sake. He knew that he was saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
In other words, you STILL have no evidence for your claims.
Sure vlad!
“You know NOBODY here ever said or even implied that there was anything “officially” published by the Vatican that approved of the abuse of the Indulgences scheme. ”
The pope laundered the sale of indulgences and used them to build a worldly edifice.
There is no evidence he returned them.
The building was completed and still stands.
Ping to previous post and link
All you have to do is post evidence for what you claim. But you’ll fail to do so.
Wow. That’s a brutal read. No wonder Roman Catholics don’t like to talk about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.