Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
The brilliant German monk never intended to start his own Church
A few years ago, a Lutheran friend sent me a link to her favourite website: Lutheran Satire. The brainchild of a US Lutheran pastor, it focuses on Church humour from a Lutheran angle. The goal is catechesis through comedy, and no issue or religious leader is too sacred to poke. One of the site’s most popular videos is a cartoon called “The Reformation Piggybackers”. The plot is simple: Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Let's go back to Luther's 95 Theses, shall we?
Furthermore, indulgences were made available for souls already in purgatory. This kind of indulgence seems to have been granted for the first time in 1476. It had long been held that the prayers of the living availed to shorten the pains of the departed, and the institution of masses for the dead was of long standing; but it was not without some difficulty that the Popes succeeded in establishing their claim to power over purgatory. Their power over the souls of the living was not disputed. The “Power of the Keys” had been given to Peter and transmitted to his successors; the “Treasury of the Church,” F32 i.e., the merits of Christ and of the Saints, was believed to be at their disposal, and it was this treasury which they employed in the granting of indulgences F33 but it seemed reasonable to suppose that their jurisdiction ended with death. Accordingly, Pope Sixtus IV, in 1477, declared that the power of the Pope over purgatory, while genuine, was exercised only permodum suffragii , “by way of intercession.” F34 The distinction was thought dogmatically important, but to the layman, who looked more to results than to methods, the difference between intercession and jurisdiction was trifling. To him the important thing was that the Pope, whether by jurisdiction or intercession, was able to release the soul of a departed Christian from the penalties of purgatory. It is needless to say that these indulgences for the dead were eagerly purchased.
In filial love and natural affection the indulgence-vender had powerful allies. 3. The Indulgence of 1515. — The XCV Theses were called forth by the preaching of the “Jubilee Indulgence” F35 of 1510, which was not placed on sale in central Germany until 1515. The financial needs of the papacy were never greater than in the last years of the XV. and the first years of the XVI. Century, and they were further increased by the resolve of Julius II. to erect a new church of St. Peter, which should surpass in magnificence all the churches of the world. The indulgence of 1510 was an extraordinary financial measure, the proceeds of which were to pay for the erection of the new Basilica, but when Julius died in 1513, the church was not completed, and the money had not been raised. The double task was bequeathed to his successor, Leo X. On the 31st of March, 1515, Leo proclaimed a plenary indulgence for the Archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Mainz, and appointed Albrecht, of Brandenburg, who was the incumbent of both sees and of the bishopric of Halberstadt as well, Commissioner for the sale of this indulgence. By a secret agreement, of which Luther was, of course, entirely ignorant, one-half of the proceeds was to be paid to the Fuggers of Augsburg on account of moneys advanced to the Archbishop for the payment of the fees to Rome, and of the sums demanded in consideration of a dispensation allowing him to occupy three sees at the same time; the other half of the proceeds was to go to the papal treasury to be applied to the building of the new church. The period during which the indulgence was to be on sale was eight years.
The actual work of organizing the “indulgence-campaign” was put into the hands of John Tetzel, whose large experience in the selling of indulgences fitted him excellently for the post of Sub-commissioner. The indulgence sellers acted under the commission of the Archbishop and the directions of Tetzel, who took personal charge of the enterprise. The preachers went from city to city, and during the time that they were preaching the indulgence in any given place, all other preaching was required to cease. F36 They held out the usual inducements to prospective buyers. The plenary nature of the indulgence was made especially prominent, and the people were eloquently exhorted that the purchase of indulgence-letters was better than all good works, that they were an insurance against the pains of hell and of purgatory, that they availed for all satisfactions, even in the case of the most heinous sins that could be conceived, F37 “Confessional letters” F38 were one of the forms of ‘this indulgence. They gave their possessor permission to choose his own confessor, and entitled him to plenary remission once in his life, to absolution from sins normally reserved, etc.
The indulgences for ‘the dead were zealously proclaimed, and the duty of purchasing for departed souls released from the pains of purgatory was most urgently enjoined. So great was the power of the indulgence to alleviate the pains of purgatory, that the souls of the departed were said to pass into heaven the instant that the coins of the indulgence-buyer jingled in the money-box. F39 4. Luther’s Protest . — The Theses were Luther’s protest against the manner in which this indulgence was preached, and against the false conception of the efficacy of indulgences which the people obtained from such preaching. They were not his first protest, however. In a sermon, preached July 27th, 1516, F40 he had issued a warning against the false idea that a man who had bought an indulgence was sure of salvation, and had declared the assertion that souls could be bought out of purgatory to be “a piece of temerity.” His warnings were repeated in other sermons, preached October 31st, 1516, and February 14th, 1517. F41 The burden of these warnings is always the same: the indulgences lead men astray; they incite to fear of God’s penalties and not to fear of sin; they encourage false hopes of salvation, and make light of the true condition of forgiveness, viz., sincere and genuine repentance.
These warnings are repeated in the Theses. The preaching of indulgences has concealed the true nature of repentance; the first thing to consider is what our Lord and Master Jesus Christ means,” when He says, “Repent.” (Taken from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/10/disputation-of-doctor-martin-luther-on.html)
No...I've got the right dead horse.
LOL! Winning.
Wonder if the Roman Catholic Church would give back all of the money from the indulgences that were “granted” ?
Curious...posted by one who is guilty of the same “heresies” Luther is said to be...rejection of the Pope of Rome, Francis. What is that saying about people who live in glass houses and throwing stones?
What do you think???
Too much $$ made of the "statues" of her by Rome.
“Let’s go back to Luther’s 95 Theses, shall we?”
Not a single one of the 95 theses actually shows a single source about a pope or council authorizing the sale of indulgences. Tetzel was not a pope. He was not a council. He was just a priest and was not authorized to sell indulgences as his own appointment letter makes clear.
Thanks for playing.
He doesn’t see he is the modern day version of Luther...well, in some way.
“No...I’ve got the right dead horse.”
Nope. Let’s look again:
“but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“the Roman Pontiff.”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“The holy Roman Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“It (The Roman Church)”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“Roman church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
And let’s look again:
The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)
You’re not only beating the wrong dead horse, but you’re apparently beating yourself.
And again, for the last time, your problem, among many, is with the website and its rendering of the text in question.
The term Roman Catholic was in existence well before the Reformation. You just can't admit it.
>>>I think it’s 53 of the 56 signers of the Declaration were Protestants.<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, and Puritan-influenced forms no doubt (though no longer by that name).
The Puritan spirit created liberty and capitalism.
“Again, you can’t even come up with your own material.”
The truth is enough.
“And again, for the last time, your problem, among many, is with the website and its rendering of the text in question.”
And, again, and not for the last time probably, I don’t even know what the website it. All that mattered was that you posted quotes that said one thing and you falsely claimed they said another. At that point the website is irrelevant. You torpedoed your own efforts by posting quotes that in no way said what you claimed they said.
“The term Roman Catholic was in existence well before the Reformation. You just can’t admit it.”
The term “Roman Catholics” WAS NOT - just as lexicographers - who were Protestants - admitted in the OED.
Again, you can’t just say a Latin phrase from the 13th century or the 11th century or elsewhere in the Middle Ages is somehow the same as a DIFFERENT term in English in the 16th century. That’s not how language works. That’s not how history works. It is how a Protestant drone would work, however, because he probably doesn’t care about facts.
An indulgence was "granted" if money was contributed.
It's an exchange of funds for a good.
In any part of the educated western free world, that would be called a sale....except in the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholics love to play these semantic games to get around what they're doing. They remind me of the Pharisees so much.
I hope he isn't teaching business classes...or any classes for that matter.
“Vlad seems to think if there isn’t a receipt involved, or a billboard advertising this, then it wasn’t a sale. LOL”
No. We all know that some unscrupulous people sold indulgences - violating canon law in the process. What didn’t happen is this: There was NEVER an authorization from any pope or council to sell indulgences to anyone ever. They were never supposed to be sold. And no pope and no council EVER authorized any sale of indulgences. That’s what all the historical records from popes and councils show. All of them.
I have said it all along and I have been right all along.
“It’s an exchange of funds for a good.”
DONATIONS. And those who had no money to DONATE still were given the indulgence - which shows there was no intention on the part of the Church to sell them. If they were intended to be sold, then everyone would have to actually buy them, but that clearly was not the case.
Obey your programming, drone.
BTW...keep up the imitation...love it! WINNING. It never gets old.
Can't wait to see which line you copy in your next post.
“Wow. I’ve seen stubborn before but you have exceeded those examples.”
I don’t think you’re stubborn at all.
“BTW...keep up the imitation...love it! WINNING. It never gets old.”
No imitation. Just pointing out the truth.
“Can’t wait to see which line you copy in your next post.”
Sure you can.
I'm sure this all seems like a game to you, but it's not to me. Did you read the points I gave? Did you miss the parts about the selling of indulgences that went on before the Reformation, the many bishops and popes who authorized them, the appointment of Tetzel AND others to go out and sell the indulgences, the financing of St. Peter's Basilica refurbishing as well as the personal gambling debts of the pope, etc.? How is it possible to quibble over semantics when everyone already acknowledges there were abuses with the selling of indulgences? Luther's primary objection to this practice was that it cheapened confession and missed the whole reason for repentance. Seeing as he WAS a doctor of the church, I'm sure he knew what he was talking about and I'd take his experience over that of a Catholic apologist five hundred years later.
I'm pretty sure you opened this thread for the sole purpose of arguing with "Protestants" and probably to boast of your superior knowledge of history. I've yet to read any objective history from you and conclude it all is rather a game. I won't play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.