You wrote:
“Selling indulgences was the cause of the Reformation and it most certainly is well documented.”
That’s false on both counts.
1) The Protestant Revolution was not caused by the selling of indulgences nor could it be. There’s no cause and effect there at all.
2) There is no documentation WHATSOEVER that shows the Catholci Church ever approved of the sale of indulgences. Thus, if anyone was doing it, it was against the law. Those are the facts.
“The following is just a small sample from a Lutheran website, but a quick google will show the Catholic church was fully aware and compliant in this:
John Tetzel, a friar of the Dominican order, was getting souls out of purgatory in a different fashion.”
Notice, it says TETZEL. What he did was on his head. If he exceeded his authority and preached novel doctrines, which he apparently did, he, and he alone, is guilty. The Catholic Church is innocent.
“The indulgences he sold bore the coat of arms of his holiness, the pope himself.”
That TETZEL sold. Exactly my point. Also, if you look closer into the actual sources and not some Lutheran website - which could be based on exactly nothing as far as you know or show - you’ll see there is reason to believe he did not even sell indulgences to begin with.
“The coin paid to Tetzel bought a plenary indulgence—full forgiveness and release from all penalties for sin.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“As a salesman, Tetzel excelled.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons to people for sins they had committed.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He peddled pardons for sins they were going to commit.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“He offered his indulgences as payment for penalties to the living and the dead: “As soon as the coin in the coffer clinks, the soul from purgatory springs!””
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
Are you beginning to see the pattern of your error here yet?
“So powerful were his indulgences, Tetzel thundered, that they could even remove the stain of sin from one who had violated the virgin Mary.”
TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel boasted that he had saved more people with his indulgences than the apostle Peter did with his preaching.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
“Tetzel was brash and crude—and he hauled in money for his indulgences hand over fist.”
“He” meaning TETZEL, not the Church.
You have shown that I was absolutely 100% correct from the very start. Even your hapless Lutheran webpage shows that Tetzel was at fault. TETZEL, not the Church.
But worse than indulgences was the following official statement of the RCC (Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 12)
"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in God's mercy, which remits sin for Christ's sake, or that it is this trust alone which justifies us, let him be damned."