[piusv]

“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

[Elsie]

Thank  GOD!!!  that the Church does NOT condone the SELLING of indulgences; with their inherent FALSE promises!!

 

---

---

---

 

 

For a low; LOW! price of ONLY $11.95...

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.catholiccompany.com/brown-scapular-brown-cord-18-inch-i104714/?sku=2026726&utm_source=google&utm_medium=products&aid=4280&product_id=2026726&creative=11070181829&device=c&matchtype=e

 

 

[Elsie]

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.

 

 

Well; if there is only ONE thing here in the religion forum that we want and need; it's clarity!!

 

 

---

---

 

 The Inquisition, which the Catholic sovereigns had been empowered to establish by Sixtus IV in 1478, had, despite unjustifiable cruelties, failed of its purpose, chiefly for want of centralisation.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

 

 

 

There is a tradition that when Ferdinand was about to yield to the enticing offer, Torquemada appeared before him, bearing a crucifix aloft, and exclaiming: "Judas Iscariot sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver; Your Highness is about to sell him for 30,000 ducats. Here He is; take Him and sell Him."

 

 

[daniel1212]

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.

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.