Are Protestants taught that the Church Encouraged selling Indulgences?

[onetruechurch]

I subscribe to an e-mail Writer’s Almanac that Garrison Keilor of Prairie Home Companion e-mails daily (free) On November 10th he wrote about Martin Luther’s birthday. He described him as a priest who did not enjoy “performing” mass. Then he went on to tell about the “Church in Rome” beginning a big push to sell indulgences because they needed money to re-build the basilica.
I was never told that version of the story of Luther. I was always told it was against church policy to “sell” indulgences but some individuals were selling them without church permission.

 

[w_stewart]

This may help you

 

[onetruechurch]

Thank you W-Stewart

According to Myth # 7 Luther confused the “giving of alms” with buying of the indulgences. However, if the church was encouraging the giving of alms to build the basilica and then promised the indulgences for the giving of the money, it sounds like buying indulgences to me.
I realize there actually was corruption going on in the church during Luther’s time but my concern is whether the church itself had condoned the giving of indulgences to the money doners. That would be like the church granting indulgences to the Mafia if they donated money to the church.

 

[BrewMax]

I subscribe to an e-mail Writer’s Almanac that Garrison Keilor of Prairie Home Companion e-mails daily (free) On November 10th he wrote about Martin Luther’s birthday. He described him as a priest who did not enjoy “performing” mass. Then he went on to tell about the “Church in Rome” beginning a big push to sell indulgences because they needed money to re-build the basilica.
I was never told that version of the story of Luther. I was always told it was against church policy to “sell” indulgences but some individuals were selling them without church permission.

Not only did Luther profess that this was indeed happening, but also the Anglicans in England stated this as well.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Not only did Luther profess that this was indeed happening, but also the Anglicans in England stated this as well.

And these are all Myths. Let us a separate the truth from the so called Myths:

Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses**, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.**

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences**. The* financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence*. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."**

 

[onetruechurch]

And these are all Myths. Let us a separate the truth from the so called Myths:

states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

Thank you Manny,

I especially like this statement…especially the part “when it is done with the right motives”. The Mafia and other rich people who thought all they needed to do was to give money to earn “credit toward heaven” would have the wrong intentions and therefore would not qualify for indulgences. If Luther were alive today he would see many Protestant churches that “encourage giving money”. Many donors receive their reward here on earth in a variety of ways.
Another fact?? I have been told about Luther is that he had a problem of being overly scrupulous. He supposedly had a daily need for confession because he thought he could never be pure enough for heaven. Once he left the church he decided that since he became addicted to confession it was the sacrament of confession that was the evil…not his scrupulosity. Anyone able to verify that statement?

 

[gcnuss]

Thank you Manny,

I especially like this statement…especially the part “when it is done with the right motives”. The Mafia and other rich people who thought all they needed to do was to give money to earn “credit toward heaven” would have the wrong intentions and therefore would not qualify for indulgences. If Luther were alive today he would see many Protestant churches that “encourage giving money”. Many donors receive their reward here on earth in a variety of ways.
Another fact?? I have been told about Luther is that he had a problem of being overly scrupulous. He supposedly had a daily need for confession because he thought he could never be pure enough for heaven. Once he left the church he decided that since he became addicted to confession it was the sacrament of confession that was the evil…not his scrupulosity. Anyone able to verify that statement?

Here is what Luther taught about confession in the Small Catechism – written in 1529:

How One Should Teach the Uneducated to Confess

I. Q. What is confession?
A. Confession has two parts:

 First, a person admits his sin.

 Second, a person receives absolution or forgiveness from the confessor, as if from God Himself, without doubting it, but believing firmly that his sins are forgiven by God in Heaven                  through it.

II. Q. Which sins should people confess?

 A. When speaking to God, we should plead guilty to all sins, even those we don't know about, just as we do in the ``Our                Father,'' but when speaking to the confessor, only the sins we               know about, which we know about and feel in our hearts.

III. Q. Which are these?

 A. Consider here your place in life according to the Ten

Commandments. Are you a father? A mother? A son? A daughter? A husband? A wife? A servant? Are you disobedient, unfaithful or lazy? Have you hurt anyone with your words or actions? Have you stolen, neglected your duty, let things go or injured someone?

 

[peary]

I subscribe to an e-mail Writer’s Almanac that Garrison Keilor of Prairie Home Companion e-mails daily (free) On November 10th he wrote about Martin Luther’s birthday. He described him as a priest who did not enjoy “performing” mass. Then he went on to tell about the “Church in Rome” beginning a big push to sell indulgences because they needed money to re-build the basilica.
I was never told that version of the story of Luther. I was always told it was against church policy to “sell” indulgences but some individuals were selling them without church permission.

PART 1

During the sping of 1517 Luther’s congregation often bought letters of indulgence in either Brandenburg or Anhalt, usually in the towns of Jüterbog or Zerbst, rather than going to confession. Buying letters of indulgence as punishment for sins was a popular way to clear one’s conscience. These people then wanted Luther to absolve them, even though they felt no remorse for the sins they had commited and had no intention of changing their ways.

Indulgence, as associated with penance, had developed and changed over the centuries. The sinner was to show remorse and declare that to the priest in confession in order to recieve absolution and punishment. Buying letters of indulgence could replace the punishment. This went against the popular belief that an endless ‘church treasure’ having been passed down from Christ and collected through holy suffering which the bishops and priests were supposed to distribute to the sinful masses.

By the late middle ages, the practise of selling indulgence had degenerated into impenetrably merky financial and political transactions. In response to the wildly growing financial needs of the Papal Court, church institutions were given the rights to sell letters of indulgence as punishment for sin.

What really bothered Luther was the sale of the Peter Indulgence (indulgence money used to finish building St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome), started by Pope Julius II in 1507. The distribution of indulgence within Germany was handed over to the top customs official, Prince Albrecht, by Pope Leo X. Albrecht was already Bishop of Magdeburg (1513), administrator for the diocese Halberstadt and Archbishop of Mainz (1515). Because it was illegal for one man to hold so many offices simultaneously, he had to pay the Papal Court in Rome about 29,000 Gilder. In order to be able to afford this, Albrecht took out credit from the Fugger bank in Augsburg. From the money he was supposed to make by selling indulgences, half of it was to go to Rome to help build St. Peter’s Basilica and the other half (over 36,000 Gilder) to the Cardinal to pay off his debt to the Fugger.

 

[peary]

I subscribe to an e-mail Writer’s Almanac that Garrison Keilor of Prairie Home Companion e-mails daily (free) On November 10th he wrote about Martin Luther’s birthday. He described him as a priest who did not enjoy “performing” mass. Then he went on to tell about the “Church in Rome” beginning a big push to sell indulgences because they needed money to re-build the basilica.
I was never told that version of the story of Luther. I was always told it was against church policy to “sell” indulgences but some individuals were selling them without church permission.

PART 2

This ‘christian’ financial manipulation wasn’t what angered Luther the most. It was the concept of indulgence, spread by Tetzel, which defied Luther’s convictions. Luther believed that the sinful person ought to spend his/her life filled with remorse and in humility towards God’s magesty. Tetzel’s wares promised a comfortable and superficial life along a false path which was also offensive to God. In Luther’s eyes it had to be put to a stop at once.

In his letter to Archbishop Albrecht, Luther included a copy of his 95 Theses; some critical questions were asked about the sale of indulgences without questioning indulgence on the whole, the church, its representatives or its doctrine of salvation. It was not chance, as one occasionally reads, that the fight over the sale of indulgence caused conflict with Rome. Without trying to, the Indulgence Theses had a more direct influence on changing the central power of the church than the theses about scholastic theology.

 

[bpbasilphx]

And since when is Garrison Keilor a source for Church History and Theology?

 

[onetruechurch]

And since when is Garrison Keilor a source for Church History and Theology?

For you youngsters out there who are not familiar with Garrison Keillor, I will introduce you. He is a midwestern humorist with a folksy weekly radio show who always has a humorous monologue about a small town named Lake Wobegon, Minnesota. Most of the time the themes of his stories center around the Lutheran parishoners and the Catholic parishoners. Very funny! It’s almost like reading Catholic Answers forums Anyone familiar with the midwest back in the 50’s understands that much of his humor is very close to the truth. Religious prejudice was rampant. I know…my family was shunned by my mother’s Lutheran relatives because she converted to Catholicism to marry my dad. Even though I am conservative both politically and religiously, I still enjoy the humor of a liberal midwestern Protestant. You might call him the modern day “Chesterton” for Protestants and old folks like me who grew up in the midwest.

 

[BrianH]

The answer to your question is no one in my church ever mentions Catholicism except when we take a group to the Catholic Church for confirmation class.

 

[Steadfast]

I think that sometimes Protestants are not particularly careful when discussing this issue and will actually imply that the sale of indulgences was encouraged by the church, leaving open the conclusion that this encouragement was at least quasi-official.

The fact remains however, that the Church did very little to curb the practice until it blew up in its face.

 

[Alexius]

I think that sometimes Protestants are not particularly careful when discussing this issue and will actually imply that the sale of indulgences was encouraged by the church, leaving open the conclusion that this encouragement was at least quasi-official.

The fact remains however, that the Church did very little to curb the practice until it blew up in its face.

When I was first taught about indulgences, they were made to sound like something widespread in Catholic Europe. They were also supposedly something which wwere official and sold by the Catholic Church to raise money to rebuild the dome of St. Peter’s…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[lak611]

The answer to your question is no one in my church ever mentions Catholicism except when we take a group to the Catholic Church for confirmation class.

Why do you take a group to the Catholic church as part of the confirmation class?

 

[Steadfast]

When I was first taught about indulgences, they were made to sound like something widespread in Catholic Europe. They were also supposedly something which wwere official and sold by the Catholic Church to raise money to rebuild the dome of St. Peter’s…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Well, what actually happened is that Albrecht of Mainz purchased the Archbishopric of Mainz and an electoral seat in the HRE and was given the right to offset the purchase by the promulgation of an indulgence. The monies he paid were what actually bankrolled St. Petes.

It was pretty much understood that Tetzel et al would, effectively, sell this indulgence throughout the land even though it remains true that there is no official endorsement of the practice.

 

[jmcrae]

The answer to your question is no one in my church ever mentions Catholicism except when we take a group to the Catholic Church for confirmation class.

Why do you take a group to the Catholic church as part of the confirmation class?

I was just about to ask the same question.

Shouldn’t you be teaching them about your beliefs, in Confirmation?

 

[Alexius]

Well, what actually happened is that Albrecht of Mainz purchased the Archbishopric of Mainz and an electoral seat in the HRE and was given the right to offset the purchase by the promulgation of an indulgence. The monies he paid were what actually bankrolled St. Petes.

It was pretty much understood that Tetzel et al would, effectively, sell this indulgence throughout the land even though it remains true that there is no official endorsement of the practice.

That sounds intune with what actually happened, but I was taught from an evangelical perspective, so what do you expect?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Steadfast]

That sounds intune with what actually happened, but I was taught from an evangelical perspective, so what do you expect?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

It’s actually a lot more complicated than most Evangelicals could be bothered with I think.

Usually they just boil it down to “POPE IS TEH EVIL”

 

[BrianH]

Why do you take a group to the Catholic church as part of the confirmation class?

To show the diversity of belief in the body of Christ and to teach respect for other Christians. Same reason we visit the synagogue to learn the rich history of the Hebrew Bible.