There are five major falsehoods in the first sentences:
1) The medieval indulgence was a writ.
No, it had absolutely nothing to do with any writs or any documents of any kind. It was merely a claim with no earthly legal significance.
2) offered by the Church, for money,
No, the Church itself had absolutely, completely, emphatically, universally and irrevocably condemned the sale of indulgences before Luther.
3) guaranteeing
No, the basic theology of indulgences, in fact, required a sincerely contrite heart and resolve to avoid sin, without which, the indulgence is meaningless
4) guaranteeing
Does the author even know what “guarantee” means? Maybe he means “assuring” or “asserting?” How would anyone even fulfill such a guarantee?
5) the remission of sin,
No, Jesus’s sacrifice one the cross is sufficient for the remission of sin; an indulgence merely relieved certain consequences of sin, specifically, the need for purgartion.
Frankly, I’m wondering what your source here is; I thought maybe it was related to those old World Encyclopedias, but the article not only seems based purely on common misconceptions and no actual research, but is even sloppily written enough that as a former teacher, I’d’ve filled it with red pen and told the seventh-grade student who completed it to do a better job and maybe they could get better than a “C” this time.
Excellent post!