Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
I actually felt sorry for non-Catholics cause they weren’t *real* Christians. They only had a little bit of the truth, not the full truth that the Catholic church had (so I thought).
Then I met Jesus and my eyes were opened and I saw how wrong I had been and how judgmental.
I didn’t get the impression that vlad was offended. I thought he was merely trying to show how the term was used by the English.
Testimonies like yours and other former Roman Catholics are encouraging.
One odd trait displayed by erstwhile self-appointed defenders of the Roman faith is to depict their church as a herd of cats whenever the Vatican steps in it, I’ve noted with some amusement over the years while participating in these debates. Another is the belief that papal decree changes history. The post hoc decree that the sale of indulgences was not approved by the church means to them that the church never approved the sale of indulgences, despite the Basilica of St. Peter being funded by the sale of indulgences. The mind boggles at the prospect of just how such a structure materialized in such a location with the papacy unaware, but there you go.
Excellent point! No doubt they kept up with the money that poured in.
The papacy was practicing a wink, wink, nod, nod at what was happening. We're not "selling" indulgences even though money is exchanging hands for the indulgence.
Kinda like claiming the DNC didn't know about Harvey!
Here’s another source which seems unbiased:
http://www.patheos.com/library/roman-catholicism
“16th century — The term “Roman Catholic” is not generally used until the Protestant Reformation”
Another weird yet amusing one is anachronistically applying freedom of religion (!) to Spain or any of the other Roman Catholic countries that came under Inquisition, as if the Roman Catholic Church was not the State Church, and as if the kings and queens of such countries were not regarded as having divine right through the church.
Very slippery, this retroactive virtue-casting. We declare this or that action to be wrong in response to abuses in the church, therefore it never happened and anyone who indulged in such action was acting outside the authority of the church. That’s how anti-popes get declared. In hindsight.
We see it to some extent in government and in war, the victors write the history.
I think that is a more accurate picture of the use of the term. For we know Innocent had used the term "Roman Catholic" prior to the Reformation.
Big difference between never and not generally.
“I give the church money they give me an indulgence....it’s considered a sale everywhere except in the narrow Roman Catholic mind.”
Today I donated money to the Knights of Columbus. They’re collecting it to give aid to children with mental handicaps. They gave me a tootsie roll. It wasn’t a sale. It was a donation. By the way, I have no idea what size donation they wanted. I gave them more than they expected. It was a donation.
“I pay to see relics, view them correctly and the indulgence is granted.”
If you donate money to the upkeep of a church with relics you’ve donated money to the upkeep of a church with relics. And?
“it’s considered a sale everywhere except in the narrow Roman Catholic mind.”
Actually, no. I have met plenty of Protestants who understood that the Church was NOT authorizing the sale of indulgences, and I have even met some who understood that many people pursuing the indulgences were not buying them but donating money as part of a larger process for gaining the indulgence. After all the normal process included confession, a penance, a discussion with your priest to be released from your penance because you were going to do something in place of it (e.g. go on crusade, take a religious vow, donate money for the parish’s roof, whatever), and then a meeting with the indulgence preacher, listening to his instructions and the necessary steps for the indulgence and then carrying them out. If a man had no money to donate - and only some indulgences (a tiny minority in fact) involved a donation of money - you could receive the indulgence any way. Some Protestants I have met knew these things, but they were intelligent, educated people who were relatively well versed in history and actually cared about truth and accuracy.
“You know, if the Roman Catholic would admit what happened happened, then I’d have some respect. They made a mistake to raise money. It happens.”
I’d have some respect for the Protestant who would admit the truth: No pope, no council, ever in the history of the Church advocated or authorized the sale of indulgences. It was a clear violation of canon law. I would have more respect for the popes and councils of that time if they did a better job of disciplining those unscrupulous men who sold indulgences. But as it is, it looks like some Protestants on FR will insist that popes and councils did what no one has any record of them doing. As it is, there’s no way to go back in time and get popes and councils to better discipline unscrupulous men who sold indulgences. That situation wouldn’t get better until the Council of Trent.
“Remember, it’s usually not the crime, it’s the cover up that gets you and that’s what you’re trying to defend...the cover up. The spin.”
Except there’s no cover-up from us. You keep claiming one phrase is another. You keep claiming quotes say something they don’t say. You keep insisting something happened even though you have yet to present any evidence it did. I, on the other hand, have conclusively shown that one phrase is not another, that the quotes you used did not say what you falsely claimed they did, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that any pope, nor council, ever in the history of the Church advocated or authorized the sale of indulgences. Thus, if there’s spin, it’s all yours. And I think you know that’s the case too. I don’t even believe that you really believe what you’re saying. You’re just obeying your programming. You must obey your programming.
Today I donated money to the Knights of Columbus. They’re collecting it to give aid to children with mental handicaps. They gave me a tootsie roll. It wasn’t a sale. It was a donation. By the way, I have no idea what size donation they wanted. I gave them more than they expected. It was a donation.
Difference being, and this is key.....yours was a donation in that you expected nothing in return. That you received a piece of candy for the donation that was "way more than they expected" was from their generosity.
BTW...way to brag about your donation. Very humble. That will be your reward.
Regarding the money for indulgences....money was given with the expectation something was to be received in return. Hence a sale....except in the mind of Vlad.
Have you had any education in economics or business??
If a man had no money to donate - and only some indulgences (a tiny minority in fact) involved a donation of money - you could receive the indulgence any way.
Baloney.
You keep posting the programming note and it reminds me of MORE WINNING. LOL!.
“Difference being, and this is key.....yours was a donation in that you expected nothing in return.”
No. From previous experience I knew they were going to give me a piece of candy. I didn’t want it. I never have. I try to avoid it every time, but they always insist on giving it to me and I don’t make a scene over a piece of candy. You’re wrong again.
“That you received a piece of candy for the donation that was “way more than they expected” was from their generosity.”
Oh, I believe they are generous, but they also gave me something I didn’t really want. In any case, it was a donation.
“BTW...way to brag about your donation. Very humble. That will be your reward.”
You don’t decide what my reward is any more than you do anything about indulgences. What I said was simply an accurate statement to make a point. It was not bragging. But you have to obey your programming.
“Regarding the money for indulgences....money was given with the expectation something was to be received in return. Hence a sale....except in the mind of Vlad.”
Except money was donated. And those who had no money to donate received the indulgence too. Hence, no sale. If it was a sale, then only those who had money could get it. But that was NOT the case.
“Have you had any education in economics or business??”
Apparently more than you have. Walk into a car dealership, tell them you have no money and that you want a car anyway. See how that works.
“Baloney.”
Nope. It’s right there in the instruction letter and it happened all the time. Again, we see that you’ve never read a single book or scholarly article on indulgences.
“You keep posting the programming note and it reminds me of MORE WINNING. LOL!.”
Well, every Protestant has to have his own set of delusions. That’s one of yours.
Yeah...it was to brag that your donation was more than they expected. Thanks for sharing.
“Yeah...it was to brag that your donation was more than they expected. Thanks for sharing.”
It was more than they expected. That’s not bragging. It’s just true. Are you really that desperate?
Did you know that the Roman Catholic church STILL grants indulgences for “alms giving”? Now a few pedantics will argue repeatedly that “granting” is not the same thing as “selling”, but if the church accepts money in exchange for something - like purchasing rosaries, holy water or saint statues - and those things are in turn used for some spiritual purpose, how is that NOT the same thing?
Everywhere else it would be considered a sale....not in Roman Catholicism.
Be that as it may, Protestants did not coin the term.
It was used by the Catholic church itself before the Reformation and it's not a great stretch of the imagination to call adherents of the Roman Catholic church *Roman Catholics* with NO malicious intent.
Just because someone chooses to be easily offended and tries to define the terms and the terms of use of certain words, trying to control the discussion through control of the vocabulary does not mean the people being accused have nefarious intent in their use of the words.
Yet indulgences are still granted in exchange for many things (i.e., prayers, pilgrimages, doing good deeds, Mass, etc.) as well as alms giving or monetary donations. The whole concept of it was ripe for abuses from the start and numerous popes, bishops and other clergy - though some tried to prevent the abuses - during the time of the Reformation permitted it to go on because of the need for massive funds to build the Basilica in Rome as well as fill the Pope's coffers - Leo X's gambling debts in particular. It's unfathomable to me how a Catholic today can vehemently insist there was NEVER approval for the selling of indulgences when so much evidence proves the opposite.
I think it’s called tunnel vision.
To Luther, there was a spiritual benefit in true sorrow for sin and the necessity of contrition to be restored to fellowship with God. In one of Luther's early sermons regarding indulgences, he preached:
“Tyndale... was condemned because his translation was heretical, not because it was made at all. English Bibles were made before his time, and after it, with the approval of the Church.”
What English Bibles did the Roman Catholic Church approve before Tyndale’s?
Tyndale was martyred for his faith in 1536.
The ones who condemned him to be burned at the stake were the heretics. And they did what heretics will sometimes do: murder and torture God’s elect. Satan did it. Cain did it. Ahab and Jezebel did it. The Pharisees did it. And the clergy of the Church of Rome did it.
The first Rome-approved English Bible I have heard of was in 1582. Let me know if Rome was busy getting the scriptures in the English-speaking commoners hands before they had Tyndale killed. Because I would like to learn more of that. In my thinking, there never would have been an English translation of the Bible without the Reformation.
God made eternal promises to Israel, the descendants of Abraham. Yet the clergy of Jesus’s day misappropriated them. Jesus acknowledged they were “Abraham’s seed,” yet He also called them children of the Devil. God never forsook Israel or broke His promises to them, yet He did move outside of their authority structure in His work. So Paul says “God did not cast off His people whom He foreknew.” And, he uses his own salvation as an example of God’s faithfulness to His promises. Paul being saved was proof God did not abandon Israel. Yet He did scatter Israel to the four winds.
Likewise, God promised to preserve and protect His Church. And He did. There has never been a generation in which there was no Christian church made up of true believers in Christ. But God took His elect away from the grip of a wicked, Rome-centered hierarchy and restored His elect to learning from Him and about Him by His word under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit who Jesus said would show us all things. (John 14:26)
That is what the Reformation is about.
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.