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.
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...
“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