““So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences?”
Absolutely.”
And yet, it was a practice of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences, straight from the Pope himself.
“Pope Leo X (11 December 1475 – 1 December 1521), born Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, was the Pope from 1513 to his death in 1521. He was the last non-priest (only a deacon) to be elected Pope. He is known for granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter’s Basilica”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X
“Leo X, the pope in 1517, needed funds to complete the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Leo entered into an arrangement that essentially sold indulgence franchises that allowed the franchisee to retain about half the funds raised by selling indulgences in return for sending to Rome the other half for Leo’s construction project. To encourage indulgence sales, Albert of Brandenburg, one winner of the privilege of selling indulgences, advertised that his indulgences (issued by the pope) came with a complete remission of sins, allowing escape from all of the pains of purgatory”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...dulgences.html
“Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”
“The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. . . . Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
“And yet, it was a practice of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences, straight from the Pope himself.”
False. No document ever found shows any pope ever selling or proposing the selling of indulgences. That’s simply a fact.
Example:
“granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter’s Basilica”
GRANTING. DONATED. = NO SALE.
“Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg...”
Read the Protestant compiled Documents of the Christian Church (edited by Protestant Henry Bettenson), 4th edition, page 195 on which you’ll see the instruction letter from Albishop Albrecht which shows no sale of indulgences was to take place. If someone had no money to donate (and donation means there were to be no sales), he was to be simply given the indulgence.