“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.
Ohhhhhh,, I see. It wasn’t “selling indulgences”. It was “Granting them” in return for “donations”.
Tony Soprano would be proud. We don’t “extort”, we give “protection”, and the business “expresses it’s appreciation” with money. LOL
Why no officer,,,, I did not pay her for sex, I was donating money to her, and she was showing her gratitude!
Someone should let New Advent know:
“Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the large treasure left by Julius II was entirely dissipated in two years. In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope’s income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats. On his unexpected death his creditors faced financial ruin. A lampoon proclaimed that “Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor.”
A little further:
“The most important occurrence of Leo’s pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. 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.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
“you’ll see the instruction letter from Albishop Albrecht which shows no sale of indulgences was to take place.”
Can you please provide the letter with the alleged order not to sell indulgences? And why would Leo offer it in the first place and then declare that he will keep one half the returns, if the selling of indulgences was refused? And why would Albrecth, in his zeal, simply want to give money to the Pope which he gained through selling indulgences?
Not nice to laugh on these threads, I knew this was coming. LoL. Clintonian 500 years BBC (Before Bill Clinton).