Replies

You wrote:

"Do no PRESUME to tell me what I do or do not know about Protestant history sir. I have studied it and have taught it in college and have two degrees in it. As Luther taught Paul's letters he grew in understanding of justification."

You made errors in your presentation of Luther's development. Deal with it.

"I quoted from your own Catholic encyclopedia about Leo X."

Yes, you did. It also did not say what you implied it did.

"You disagree with your own historians. Saying he wasn't a cad doesn't make it so. He was embarassment and even New Advent admits it."

Being an embarrassment does not mean he ordered or authorized the sale of indulgences. Can you find a document that says Leo X actually did so? No, because there is no such document and never has been. There are several docs. from him showing he wanted indulgences preached, but that does not mean "indulgences sold".

"Tetzel's words were taken from the internet, but have been read many times before. He worked under the direction of the Papacy."

What document do you have showing that the papacy authorized him to SELL indulgences - an act prohibited by canon law and directly contradicted by the instructional letter of Archbishop Albrecht? You have nothing.

"He went further than even the papacy wanted him to in his proclamations to wring money from peasant hands and got himself in trouble."

No money was wrung from anyone. Any money given was GIVEN. Donations. Also, as made clear by Albrecht's letter, those who had nothing to donate still received the indulgence. And you are proving my case for me: if Tetzel was going further than the papacy ever wanted him to on indulgences then that who indicate he was perfectly capable of going further in the actual handling of indulgences then the papacy wanted.

"Luther's cry for reformation is NOT irrelevant. You said he was an instant rebel."

I said he was a rebel. I never used the word "instant". Criticize what I say please and don't make up what I didn't say and claim those words are mine. It seems we have plenty to argue about already. Let's stick to what is said and not make uo things, okay? I don't do it, and I expect you to do that as well.

"I illustrated how he wasn't. You don't give a flip what anyone actually says but just want to argue. This makes this conversation rather boring."

You posted a hagiographic life of Luther that was less than historical on some points.

"The audience with the church was not before the Pope but representatives of the Church at Worms (unless you don't consider one representing an Archbishop to be one representing the church) and the Emperor."

Worms was not an audience before the Church. Choose your words with care. If you choose your words with care you will always be understood and more likely to be correct.

"There was also a Papal Nuncio present. Luther looked at it as an opportunity to explain things but would not be allowed to do so the way he wanted to."

Oh, poor rebel baby, Luther. Luther didn't get his way at an imperial diet? Imagine that. The hubris of the man was amazing!

"The New Testament is Bible too. Keep straining at that gnat. Maybe you'll get him."

He got himself. I think he knew it too.

"And our conversation is over. You are a hate-filled individual and I have no further comment for you."

You bet that you had no further comment for me! That was apparent from the beginning! Thanks for proving my point.