Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HarleyD
"What I said was Trent abolished the practice of collecting money for indulgences."

That is a gross mischaracterization of the Papal Bull (not to be confused with the bull you regularly issue). Clarifications were made to further reduce the susceptability of indulgencs to corruption by individuals.

The Council of Trent sticks in the craw of Protestants because it organized the counter reformation and illuminated the corrupt motives behing much of what is wrongly revered today.

The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide):
•that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and
•that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful.

As long as you are rummaging around in Catholic archives why don't you wander over to the section containing the Council of Constance which condemned among the errors of Wyclif the proposition: "It is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops" (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; see Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 622).

Additionally, in the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther's assertions that "Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful"; and that "Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God's justice" (Enchiridion, 75S, 759),

296 posted on 05/30/2011 11:47:00 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies ]


To: Natural Law
Clarifications were made to further reduce the susceptability of indulgencs to corruption by individuals.

"Abolishing" a practice is NOT "clarification".

The Council of Trent sticks in the craw of Protestants because it organized the counter reformation

Actually I love the Council of Trent (1545AD) because it illustrates just how corrupt the doctrine of the Church became 1000 years later when compared against the Council of Orange (523AD). Consider these contradictory views:

Please note that I've posted the Council of Orange doctrine from a Reformed site. This is because I can't find the Council of Orange's declarations on New Advent, the Catholic website. Instead they just "tell" you (wrongly) about the Council of Orange. Perhaps I'm wrong but try as I might I cannot find the Council of Orange's doctrine of faith on New Advent. One has to wonder what they don't want people to read.

Contrasting the Council of Orange to the much later Council of Trent shows how the Catholic belief was alter from the true Christian faith.

BTW-The Council of Orange backed all their statements up with scriptural quotes.

As far as Wycliffe's statement on the foolishness of indulgences and Luther's assertion that they are pious fraud, it isn't important what the Church's response is. Wycliffe and Luther are correct.

305 posted on 05/30/2011 5:21:50 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson