A Proof That The Catholic Church Did Not Sell Indulgences

[JohnR77]

Greetings,

I found it very frustrating to listen to Dr. Tim Gray state that the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences. EWTN aired his talk, On Location, Season 6, Episode 16, True Reformers . Lighthouse Media sells this talk on CD.

Catholic.com states clearly that the Catholic Church did not sell indulgences (contrary to a few Catholic authors.) The article is great, but it only states the truth. It does not prove the point.

So, I set out to write :

A Proof That The Catholic Church Did Not Sell Indulgences]

At this point I have to rely on what some anti-catholics inadvertently admit, that the overall context of the Papal Indulgences contained a requirement that goes beyond the exchange of money. Therefore, Indulgences were not sold.

Does anyone have the actual Papal decree by Pope Leo X before AD 1517 ?

I have found two different dates:
On March 31, 1515 Pope Leo X issued the Sacrosanctis salvatoris et redemptoris, a bull offering indulgence for those contributing to the building of St. Peter’s Basilica at Rome.

Another web site states it was in 1514.

Thanks,
John

 

[Vico]

…

Note that "certain works useful to the common good of the Church ‘could replace all penitential practices’ [34]
34. Cf. Council of Claremont can. 2: “Quicumque pro . . . paenitentia reputetur” (Mansi, SS.Conciliorum collectio 20, 816)

The Council of Claremont, A.D. 1095, Pope Urban II, called in response to issues arising from the attach of the Seljuk Turks that invaded the Byzantine Empire west of Manzikert, and also the empire of the Fatimids.

Indulgentarium Doctrina, Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences , His Holiness Pope Paul VI, Promulgated on January 1, 1967

7. The conviction existing in the Church that the pastors of the flock of the Lord could set the individual free from the vestiges of sins by applying the merits of Christ and of the saints led gradually, in the course of the centuries and under the influence of the Holy Spirit’s continuous inspiration of the people of God, to the usage of indulgences which represented a progression in the doctrine and discipline of the Church rather than a change.[33] From the roots of revelation a new advantage grew in benefit to the faithful and the entire Church.

The use of indulgences, which spread gradually, became a very evident fact in the history of the Church when the Roman Pontiffs decreed that certain works useful to the common good of the Church “could replace all penitential practices”[34] and that the faithful who were “truly repentant and had confessed their sins” and performed such works were granted “by the mercy of Almighty God and . . . trusting in the merits and the authority of His Apostles” and ‘by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power’, not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness for their sins possible."[35]

For “the only-begotten son of God . . . has won a treasure for the militant Church . . . and has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, and to his successors, Christ’s vicars on earth, that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation, applying it mercifully for reasonable causes to all who are repentant and have confessed their sins, at times remitting completely and at times partially the temporal punishment due sin in a general as well as in special ways insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the eyes of the Lord. It is known that the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect . . . add further to this treasure.”[36]

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm

 

[TheLittleLady]

Some individual priests/parishes did sell indulgences. It was wrong and sinful of them to do so.

The Church (big C) did not approve of the selling of indulgences.

 

[JohnR77]

Thanks for the responses.

The Church (big C) did not approve of the selling of indulgences.

.
Because of that, I argued in my Proof, that John Tetzel, and others, at most could only pretend to sell indulgences. I used the following analogy.

Please consider the following example.
Suppose a thief breaks into your house, takes your car keys and your car and then proceeds to “sell” your car to another person. Did he actually sell your car ? Did the ownership of the car really transfer to the third person ? The answer is NO. You are still the true owner of your car. He did not truly sell – transfer ownership – of your car. He only pretended to do so.

John

 

[niceatheist]

This is pretty much a textbook definition of splitting hairs. Whether Church authorities could, by some definition legally and theologically sell indulgences is rather besides the point. The point was, whether the indulgences were valid or not, that indulgences were sold, and it was a fairly common practice. Obviously it was the Protestant Reformers’ opinion that, on purely theological grounds, an indulgence wasn’t a marketable product, so really, you’re agreeing with the Protestant Reformers in a way. Of course, Protestants went a good deal further and in general rejected the whole premise, but one of the proximal causes of the Reformation was Pope Leo X’s sale of indulgences to finance the rebuilding of St. Peters Basilica, so it wasn’t just a few errant priests.

 

[JohnR77]

please extend the deadline to give me more time to respond

 

[Kei]

Indulgences are a practice which is a form of penance.
Are you saying they can’t be sold? When was this defined? If one cannot afford it there are other forms of penance.

The issue is that the indulgence seems to have been over exaggerated or like a get into Heaven card.

 

[JohnR77]

Are you saying they can’t be sold? When was this defined?

Protestants make the false claim that :

         The Catholic Church Sold Indulgences

Therefore, it is incumbent on them to produce the evidence. However, they cannot. See the following article to which I have just added some additional evidence. Notice how even the hostile witnesses like Martin Luther and D’Aubigné unwittingly defend the Catholic Church in this regard. See

A Proof That The Catholic Church Did Not Sell Indulgences

If you wrongly think indulgences or grace can be sold, then please read,

What Does It Mean to Sell Grace ?

Dear Kei,
I apologize for the way I phrased this post originally. I was wrong. I had unfortunately added my now deleted comment without thinking it through late at night when I was very deprived of sleep. That always gets me into trouble.

Actually your questions were very good ones. They forced me to spend several days formulating a much needed response. No doubt many other onlookers had the same questions. Your comment that there were other forms of penances was right on target. On the web page Cardinal Gibbons is quoted as follows :

No traffic or sale of Indulgences was, consequently, authorized or countenanced by the Head of the Church, since the contributions were understood to be voluntary.

You might want to explain your comment about indulgences being exaggerated. I didn’t understand what you meant.

God Bless you Always,
John

John

 

[JohnR77]

Indulgences : Important Distinctions

We have to distinguish between the false claim that :

      The Catholic Church Sold Indulgences

and the reality that :

        John Tetzel and others (at most)  only pretended to sell indulgences.

Is this a significant distinction ?

This is pretty much a textbook definition of splitting hairs.

.
The whole analysis of the event hinges on which statement above is true. To understand why this is so, we must examine the claims and the conclusions that Protestants make.

Both Catholics and Protestants claim that Pope Leo X and John Tetzel (and his kind)
all did horrible things.

But, Catholic and Protestants condemns their actions for opposite reasons.

Protestants reject them with the assumption that they were being true Catholics. And so, they reason, since the Catholic Church was corrupt then, and presumably now as well, that the Catholic Church is to be rejected. A “Cafeteria Catholic” also thinks somewhat along these lines, choosing which parts or teachings of the Church to accept and which to reject.

Catholics on the other hand reject the conduct of Pope Leo X and John Tetzel - what they did and what they failed to do - precisely because their conduct was unfaithful to the teachings and the traditions of the Catholic Church. At this point there had been a 1500 year tradition, or more counting the Old Testament, of what a good father (or Papa) or Pastor should do. Pope Leo X should have done more to correct the abuses in regards to the indulgences as had been done in the previous years when problems arose.

John Tetzel was wrong. And Pope Leo X failed to do enough to correct the problem.

John Tetzel was NOT authorized by the Catholic Church to sell, or even to pretend to sell indulgences.

See
**Correction of Indulgences’ Abuses and Misunderstandings, **
from AD 747, 1261, 1392, 1450, 1478 and 1519

The Catholic Church rejects their conduct, not because they were true and faithful Catholics, but because they went against Catholic Church teaching, or failed to perform in Pope Leo X’s case, in a manner of proper conduct for a good Pastor.

So, we should not reject the Catholic Church because she never taught indulgences, or grace, can be sold. She clearly taught the contrary. We should reject the bad examples of Pope Leo X and John Tetzel because they went contrary to Catholic Church teaching.

The distinction between selling indulgences and only pretending to sell indulgences makes all the difference in the world.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/indulgences4.html

Also, see

What Does It Mean to Sell Grace ?
http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/indulgences5.html

Peace,
John

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)