I believe where I was trying to get at was that it wasn’t Tetzel but the entire Catholic Church who allowed to have indulgences being sold.
I know this sounds terrible, but I think that the indulgence selling is “like a fundraiser” the Church had in order to remodel the St. Peter’s Basilica.
"LARobert":j343znrh wrote:
So the charge that the Church could or did sell indulgences so people could buy their way out of Hell is a false accusation[/quote:j343znrh]
It wasn’t Hell but Purgatory that the people bought indulgences for.
It wasn’t Hell but Purgatory that the people bought indulgences for.
"LARobert":j343znrh wrote:
and as Protestants (following the lead of Luther) claim that one did not have to be sorry for ones sins[/quote:j343znrh]
This fallacy is something I neither like nor can tolerate. Luther disliked the idea of indulgence selling and this is the reason why he had posted the 95 Theses in the first place. To say that Luther claimed that one didn’t need to be sorry for one’s sins is erroneous in every way.
This fallacy is something I neither like nor can tolerate. Luther disliked the idea of indulgence selling and this is the reason why he had posted the 95 Theses in the first place. To say that Luther claimed that one didn’t need to be sorry for one’s sins is erroneous in every way.
Unlike other Protestant churches who threw out everything that looks like Catholicism,
Luther kept the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Also to be noted is that Luther never wanted to start a new church but to reform the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church so it really isn’t unusual that the Lutheran church still has confession.
This is the reason why I find your statement of Luther claiming that one doesn’t need to be sorry for one’s sins false.