HMMMmmm…
|
|
 |
Posted on 10/02/2018 5:51:36 PM PDT by marshmallow
What do you mean you cannot see it? Leo X, via his Bull Sacrosanctis salvatoris et redemptoris, granted a plenary indulgence , the remission of all temporal punishment for all sins, such as would voluntarily contribute to the building of the church St. Peter. Meaning that in response to a donation was a confession certificate, which required penitent confession to any priest at any desired time in his later life in order to receive the indulgence, which became "an object of barter in a wholesale commercial transaction."
How does this deny "a way to get an indulgence is to give the Church money (in any way)?" And how does the Catholic Encyclopedia deny that this was the teaching of the Church? Does it not affirm that to indemnify Albert of Brandenburg, and to make it possible for him to discharge his incurred obligations to collect 10,000 ducats, "Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it."
I think you are anachronistically reading later teaching on indulgences back into the time of Tetzel. Yes, you can object on technical grounds, that the mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without the works prescribed for it, but do you deny that alms-giving could be one of works one must perform for the granting of an indulgence? Among the good works encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, could not alms-giving naturally hold a valid place in the time of Tetzel, as long as the condition of confession with a contrite (which is only presumed) heart be adhered to? If there was none, then how could Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences in 1567 involving any fees or other financial transactions, rather than just condemn them all as invalid?
What is not argued is that Tetzel's preaching on indulgences for the dead, that the couplet attributed to him "As soon as the gold in the casket rings, the rescued soul to heaven springs," was official teaching, but that a way to get an indulgence is to give the Church money is indeed effectively what was taught.
If you deny this, you might was well deny that a way to get an indulgence can be to say prayers.
Until you show that the Church never officially taught that a way (as conditionally described) to get an indulgence is to give the Church money (in any way), you don't have a leg to stand on.
Or merely an analysis of your posts here.
I’m above the fray
Comment #1
I’m above the fray
Comment #2
I’m above the fray
Comment #3
“Why would a donation to a worthy cause be refused?”
It was sold.
And we’ve circled back to a wink and allowing things is approval. If you keep it, you are participating.
But whatever you claim Vlad!
Worthy of WHAT?
Of course it would not be possible to build up the magnificent St. Peter's Basilica with "prayers". Pope Leo didn't have any problem using that money, did he?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can’t find any evidence that Johann Tetzel was ever imprisoned for his “abuse” of Indulgences. Odd that...
I wrote: “Why would a donation to a worthy cause be refused?”
You wrote: “It was sold.”
A donation is not a sale. Thanks for proving my point yet again.
“A donation is not a sale.“
More importantly, a sale is not a donation.
Your pope took a cut of the sales of indulgences to build a worldly edifice.
“Thanks for proving my point yet again.”
Sure vlad.
Please continue to measure yourself by your false standard.
A ‘donation’ solicited with falsehoods about getting time off Purgatory.
In the rest of the world, that would be called fraud.
“And how does the Catholic Encyclopedia deny that this was the teaching of the Church? “
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s full entry is clear that these were abuses, not Catholic doctrine. Those who want to see the Truth will see that.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
...and yet our Nero continues to fiddle.
HMMMmmm…
|
|
|
WRONG! The Catholic Encyclopedia’s full entry is indeed clear that there were abuses , but NOT that granting a plenary indulgence for voluntarily contributing to the building of the church, as described, was an abuse, which is the issue.
Instead, rather than the Bull Sacrosanctis salvatoris et redemptoris by Leo X being an abuse, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm affirms "alms deeds" "being prescribed in the granting of an indulgence," and that "among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place." Which did lead to abuses, as were other things, but not that alms giving for an indulgence was itself an abuse.
As for "those who want to see the Truth will see that," yes indeed, those who want to see the Truth can see that a way to get an indulgence was to give the Church money, via an indulgence being granted by the papal Bull Sacrosanctis salvatoris et redemptoris for those who would contribute to the building of St. Peter's, under the condition of confession, and that this was not an abuse. Moreover, as stated, the Catholic Encyclopedia (in its entry on Leo X) affirms that "Rome permitted him [Albert of Brandenburg] to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's."
That the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition would be an error, and I stated this condition, and further confirming what I said, the Catholic Encyclopedia absolves Tetzel of this charge in its entry on him, while affirming that his error was preaching "plenary indulgence for the dead on the mere gift of money, without contrition on the part of the giver."
Those who want to see the Truth can see that.
.
You’ll continue to fail to show the Church ever authorized the sale of indulgences.
“Please continue to measure yourself by your false standard.”
Truth, facts, accuracy and precision. Those are my standards and they’re not false. Remember when you said you read “original primary sources”? Yeah, that obviously wasn’t true on this subject.
“A ‘donation’ solicited with falsehoods about getting time off Purgatory.”
So you’re admitting it wasn’t a sale. Thanks for proving my point.
“In the rest of the world, that would be called fraud.”
And what if Tetzel really believed his speculative theological claim? Apparently he did. Then it wasn’t fraud. Tetzel’s real transgression was making up his own theology.
“Truth, facts, accuracy and precision.”
Pfft...
“For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding.”
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.