March 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm #9217AnonymousInactive
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."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.
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.March 12, 2009 at 7:31 pm #9218AnonymousInactive
Once again, I have to disagree with your statement. One problem with the person of Luther us that he vacillated so much during his life. You can selectivly quote him at one point in his life, but a review of his entire (and quite large) body of work shows a devout, but very tormented man. A review of his position on the Jews shows just how different his position changed over his life.
[quote:1oywv19w]It wasn’t Hell but Purgatory that the people bought indulgences for.[/quote:1oywv19w]
The fact remains that the accusations that Protesants made included that people where buying there way out of Hell.
[quote:1oywv19w]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.[/quote:1oywv19w]
Please read the entire quote that you took offence to. It does not say that Luther ascribed to having no need to be sorry for your sins. But rather that Protestants following Martin Luther’s lead in his attacks on Indulgences, misrepresented Indulgences as meaning that Catholics did not need to be sorry for their sins. Luther indeed, as Catholics felt that you needed to be repentant. He differed over time as to how one obtained forgiveness for your sins, and eventually dropped the need for the confessional, or the minister’s authority to forgive sins in the name of and by the authority of Jesus, but rather to pronounce asssurance that God had forgiven the individual.
If nothing else, Luthers problem with scruples made him sorry for his sins to the point that while still a Catholic he had trouble believing that God had or could forgive him. This is the major influence that prompted him to develop his Sola Gratia Theology, and discard 1500 years of constant teaching of the Catholic Church. As Luther and his theology developed, and often times his theology when he first protested Indulgences changed over time, and often contradicted his previous statements, you really need to look at if he maintained the same theology about any given issue. At first he believed that everyone should interpret the Bible on his own, later he decided that his interpretation was correct and that other people where either too ignorant or unable to interpret the Scriptures for himself. Some Lutherans follow his writing and accept seven sacraments, others follow what he wrote at other periods of his life and accept two sacraments, and maintain some of all of the other five, but only as symbolic acts which do not effect the soul. So there really is not one Lutheran theology, but several depending on what portion of his writing you accept.
Many Lutherans who are involved in the Ecumincal Movement want to forget that Luther called the Popes Anti-Christ, and the Cardinals in the Curia devils, they also want to forget or ignore the fact that he thought Jews should be thrown out of their homes, and restricted from most professions when they did not convert to his theology. He may have been a sincere man, who really truly believed in what he was doing, however his created far more problems than solutions.March 12, 2009 at 10:41 pm #9219AnonymousInactive
If you think that your reasons are going to change my opinion and make me come back to the Church then you’re mistaken.March 13, 2009 at 12:47 am #9220AnonymousInactive
I don’t think my postings will change your mind. I do hope they will however open your mind to more than just the side of the story given you by your Lutheran friends, and help you look at both sides of the story. I also hope that you check what I have written and verify it, as I hope you will do with what others tell you. An example of looking at the issues from both sides would be earlier today when you read my posting as attack at Martin Luther, and I needed to clarify it. We both looked at the same posting and saw two different things, I further clarified my statement not to make you happy, but because it was obvious that the way I wrote it was interpreted in a way contrary to what I proposed to you. I’ve looked at it from both sides, and I believe, regardless of how truly Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the rest of the Protestant Reformers believed they where restoring the Church to it’s primitive roots, they in fact rejected basic beliefs held by the first Christians. I’ve read both the Catholic and the Protestant sides of the debate. When I taught at an Anglican Seminary, I read from their books in their library. I live around a mile from the Fuller Seminary, one of the largest Evangelical Protestant Seminaries in the USA, I sometimes read in their library, and give the Protestant writers an even chance. So far, I’ve not read one that has convinced me….
Only being open to God’s grace will help, the rest is as straw which easily is consumed by the fire.
It also seems odd that up to this point you’ve told us that you had not decided to renounce your membership in the Catholic Church, you’ve now made statements that sound both hostile and as if you’ve left. Either way, your questions are still welcome here.March 13, 2009 at 12:51 am #9221About Catholics TeamKeymaster
I think there was a misunderstanding here. I see LARobert as saying that there was an accusation by Protestants (either in the past or currently) that Catholics bought indulgences to get out of hell without having to repent. Then I see him saying that that’s not really what happened much to the chagrin of some historians.
Next I see James understand that LARobert was saying that Protestant’s say someone does not have to be sorry for their sins, but it looks like James misunderstood LARobert’s statement. LARobert was saying that some historians/Protestants falsely claim that Catholics attempted to buy their salvation through the purchase of indulgences, but that claim by historians/Protestants is false. Indulgences reduce the amount of purgation once in purgatory, but don’t get someone out of hell or give license to sin.
And if none of that made sense…
Basically here’s what I see: In the past Protestants accused Catholics of purchasing their salvation, giving them license to sin without seeking Christ’s reconciliation, by making a monetary donation. That Catholics did this is false.
What really happened is that Catholics purchased indulgences (still morally wrong) to shorten the amount of time they spent in purgatory. Remember, purgatory is the place we go to for final purification before heaven. [b:1r591pv7]Only those already heavenbound will be in purgatory[/b:1r591pv7] (unless they are so perfectly clean they go straight to heaven – which is rare because just about everyone sins).
The reason why people go to purgatory is because sin leaves a mark on the soul, even after forgiveness, sin still has a stain on the soul. The soul needs final cleansing of those everlasting effects from sin before it can be ready for heaven. People go to hell when they have sinned and have never been reconciled to God.
[b:1r591pv7]Indulgences lessen the amount of time in purgatory for those already going to heaven[/b:1r591pv7] – they do nothing for people going to hell. People must still seek reconciliation even if they have received an indulgence, hence an indulgence is not a license to sin and does not remove the obligation to be reconciled to God. The claim that Catholics bought indulgences so they could get to heaven with no regard for personal sin and reconciliation is baseless because [b:1r591pv7]indulgences do not forgive sin[/b:1r591pv7].
I hope this helps for clarification purposes. ” title=”Smile” />March 13, 2009 at 12:58 am #9222AnonymousInactive"LARobert":1chsgzbu wrote:It also seems odd that up to this point you’ve told us that you had not decided to renounce your membership in the Catholic Church, you’ve now made statements that sound both hostile and as if you’ve left.[/quote:1chsgzbu]
I do not mean for my postings to be hostile. ” title=”Sad” />"LARobert":1chsgzbu wrote:Either way, your questions are still welcome here.[/quote:1chsgzbu]
Thank you. However, I feel like since my postings appear hostile that I should not be allowed to post on this website…March 13, 2009 at 1:04 am #9223AnonymousInactive
Thanks Jon, I’d only change one thing in your post. While Tetzel may have tried to imply that an indulgence could be sold, that error was condemned by the Church, Tetzel being disciplined for that, and some Catholics may have believed they where buying the indugences based on Tetzel’s erronous teachings, they could not, becasue a real indulgence could not be sold.
It would be the same as someone who rented an apartment and tried to sell it as a Condo. He could go through all the motions, even sign papers and take money for the apartment, but it would not be a real estate transaction, but an invalid and illegal contract.March 13, 2009 at 5:50 am #9224AnonymousInactive
[quote:3vc90t7y]Thank you. However, I feel like since my postings appear hostile that I should not be allowed to post on this website…[/quote:3vc90t7y]
Not my position to ban people. And just as you misinterpreted my posting, I could be misinterpreting you as sounding a little hostile. One of the problems with posting on a site like this, we can’t hear the inflection of someone’s voice, and as it is not in real time, we can’t ask immediatly for a clarification. Do stay here, wherever you decide (after prayer and soul searching you belong.) I can’t see into your soul, so I can’t judge you, just offer you another point of view, and answer from the Catholic point of view the attacks that anti-catholics have made against the Catholic Church.
You remain in my prayers.May 16, 2009 at 8:15 am #9358AnonymousInactive
So to summerize everything, you say that
1) Indulgences cannot be bought
2) The Catholic Church still has them
3) One must be in a state of repentence
4)Indulgences can be given to the deceased
One last question: Do they reduce your time in purgatory?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.