Book: The Facts About Luther

[hoosierdaddy]

Interesting that even some catholics on this thread see Tetzel as a villian. O’Hare’s book was the first suggestion I had seen that Tetzel was an innocent victim. The New Advent link posted above concurs that Tetzel’s Indulgence preaching was NOT corrupt, but in line with catholic teaching of then and today (which protestants may STILL see as corrupt). It appears that certain others (and perhaps Luther himself) used a campaign of smear against Tetzel in order to discredit his rebuttal of Luther’s theses, since Tetzel’s rebuttal contained little to criticize. Ad hominem isn’t a recent invention and Luther isn’t just a VICTIM of it! How sad that lies and smears can still stick after 500 years.

Luther could have done that, I don’t know. But then, he could have just been speaking against the sale of indulgences. Pretty much anything Luther may have said about Tetzel would probably not be ad hom attacks; it would have been declaring truth. Indulgences are evil and anyone who sold them was a devil (until they repent and trust in Christ).

 

[manualman]

Hoosier, I hear and understand your point of view since I studied evangelical protestant teachings with the Navigators for 5 years in college. I get it.

But in that time I noticed that my colleges had no use for scriptural teachings such as when Jesus told his apostles that whatever they bound in heaven would be bound on earth. They didn’t seem to notice the PRECEDENT set when the apostles decided that Judas Iscariot needed to be replaced and formally named a ‘new’ apostle to replace him. They also don’t seem to understand why it is dangerous to receive the body and blood ‘unworthily’ or why certain christians got sick and even died after receiving communion when they shouldn’t have. Such passages are NOT on the memorization list for good evangelicals.

I respect all my old Nav friends and their faith, even though I don’t agree with it. Hopefully you can do the same for us poor papists.

Perhaps you’d like to summarize the catholic teaching of indulgences and why it is wrong?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Thanks. I hear what you’re saying too. I don’t recall any Protestants ignoring the “bound in heaven and on earth” passage, however, I do recall them having an interpretation of what it meant.

I have respect for you Catholics as people, even if I disagree vehemently with some of your teachings. I, as a Baptist, believe in freedom of religion. Take care and God bless.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**“Perhaps you’d like to summarize the catholic teaching of indulgences and why it is wrong?” **

Indulgences were a money making venture. They were used to raise money to build churches, the Vatican, etc. The way they raised the money was to tell people to pay their hard earned money to buy indulgences so that their loved ones could be freed from purgatory and go to heaven.

There are many reasons this is wrong. Here is one: it insults Christ. Jesus died on the cross to give us a FREE GIFT, that being salvation. We either accept it in this life or we don’t get it. There is no purgatory to go to; there is no probation term with an eventual parole. To con people out of their money by means of false doctrine is bad, very bad. Jesus gave a free gift; to attach money to it is blasphmous, another doctrine, and Galatians proclaims the judgement for all those who preach another salvation doctrine.

 

[Alexius]

hoosierdaddy: “Perhaps you’d like to summarize the catholic teaching of indulgences and why it is wrong?”

Indulgences were a money making venture. They were used to raise money to build churches, the Vatican, etc. The way they raised the money was to tell people to pay their hard earned money to buy indulgences so that their loved ones could be freed from purgatory and go to heaven.

There are many reasons this is wrong. Here is one: it insults Christ. Jesus died on the cross to give us a FREE GIFT, that being salvation. We either accept it in this life or we don’t get it. There is no purgatory to go to; there is no probation term with an eventual parole. To con people out of their money by means of false doctrine is bad, very bad. Jesus gave a free gift; to attach money to it is blasphmous, another doctrine, and Galatians proclaims the judgement for all those who preach another salvation doctrine.

A great assessment:thumbsup: ! You are certainly right - the selling of indulgences was dead wrong (no pun intended )! Those who did so were insulting Christ by their own greed. I pray that God has mercy on them…Below is a decent assessment on indulgences, with other good links at the bottom of the article. Hope they help …

BTW, those in Purgatory are guaranteed of salvation…(CCC 1030)

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

 

[manualman]

Hoosier, are you perfect? No lies, no lust, no envy, greed, sloth…? I expect not (just like me). Boom! We just got killed by snipers and go to stand before judgement. Do you expect that you will enter heaven as you are now? Will heaven contain people still struggling with lies, lust, envy…?
No? Why not?

God has been pretty clear on the fact that he, too, believes in freedom of religion (and more specifically, free will). The freedom to either choose Him or reject Him. There is no reason to expect that He will take away our free will upon our deaths. This is why catholics believe there is a purgatory. Even those whose faith is in Christ, who have received joyfully the Graces of his redemption still need to learn to let go of our attachment to sin. If we don’t, we’ll make heaven into hell. God won’t allow that, but won’t force us to do it either.

Purgatory isn’t hell with a timer, nor is it a second chance. It has nothing to do with ‘punishment’ as we think of it in our culture. Purgatory is where we finish letting go of our attachment to sin so that we can enter heaven without trashing the place.

Indulgences have NOTHING to do with eternal consequences for sin. They cannot get a damned man out of hell. They do NOT remove your eternal guilt for your sins (Jesus did that, of course) Indulgences are, and have always (properly taught) have been a penitential act in which the penitent makes some form of sacrifice as a recognition of his guilt for his sin and for the fact that his past sins still cause suffering both to himself and others. (An Indulgence, contrary to myth, has also never applied before the fact. A myth so common as to have actually have changed the meaning of the word in common usage!) They are a tool the church has discerned that helps man to become sanctified, not saved.

In catholic teaching, there is a communion of saints. The body of Christ is ONE. Those in purgatory being purged of the last vestiges of attachment to sin are allowed knowledge of the prayers said for them by saints still here on earth. Imagine this: Your brother is a rabid Packer fan and the two of you have been fueding for years. The Pack is in the Superbowl and he has tickets. The morning of the game, you break your toe and he skips the game to bring you to the hospital. That’s love and his sacrifice has the power to actually change your heart. Prayers for the dead are the same way. Indulgences that include sacrifices by the living have the same effect on those in purgatory whom God allows to SEE what their loved ones are up to on earth.

Are there abuses? SURE! Just like there are protestant preachers that stand up and say that if you contribute to their Rolls Royce purchase fund that God will give them back 5 times as much as you donate! Does that abuse mean that it is wrong to donate to the church? Of course not. The reforms of Trent do not repudiate the concept of man making a financial sacrifice to God out of love or pentitence, they merely acknowledge that allowing indulgences to be linked to money can have the appearance of scandal and can be used for ill gain by Judas clergy.

P.S. The wikipedia article would be fine except for the degraded definition of the word ‘punishment’ in our culture. In christian theological terms, punishment is less about angry venegeance and more about instruction in consequences. Change your viewpoint to that of a parent punishing a child and you might get it.

 

[manualman]

P.S. Interesting that the Wikipedia article lacks citation for the damning quotes attributed to Tetzel. Could they be straw-man constructs designed to discredit the man?

 

[janryboy]

Hoosier, are you perfect? No lies, no lust, no envy, greed, sloth…? I expect not (just like me). Boom! We just got killed by snipers and go to stand before judgement. Do you expect that you will enter heaven as you are now? Will heaven contain people still struggling with lies, lust, envy…?
No? Why not?

God has been pretty clear on the fact that he, too, believes in freedom of religion (and more specifically, free will). The freedom to either choose Him or reject Him. There is no reason to expect that He will take away our free will upon our deaths. This is why catholics believe there is a purgatory. Even those whose faith is in Christ, who have received joyfully the Graces of his redemption still need to learn to let go of our attachment to sin. If we don’t, we’ll make heaven into hell. God won’t allow that, but won’t force us to do it either.

Purgatory isn’t hell with a timer, nor is it a second chance. It has nothing to do with ‘punishment’ as we think of it in our culture. Purgatory is where we finish letting go of our attachment to sin so that we can enter heaven without trashing the place.

Indulgences have NOTHING to do with eternal consequences for sin. They cannot get a damned man out of hell. They do NOT remove your eternal guilt for your sins (Jesus did that, of course) Indulgences are, and have always (properly taught) have been a penitential act in which the penitent makes some form of sacrifice as a recognition of his guilt for his sin and for the fact that his past sins still cause suffering both to himself and others. (An Indulgence, contrary to myth, has also never applied before the fact. A myth so common as to have actually have changed the meaning of the word in common usage!) They are a tool the church has discerned that helps man to become sanctified, not saved.

In catholic teaching, there is a communion of saints. The body of Christ is ONE. Those in purgatory being purged of the last vestiges of attachment to sin are allowed knowledge of the prayers said for them by saints still here on earth. Imagine this: Your brother is a rabid Packer fan and the two of you have been fueding for years. The Pack is in the Superbowl and he has tickets. The morning of the game, you break your toe and he skips the game to bring you to the hospital. That’s love and his sacrifice has the power to actually change your heart. Prayers for the dead are the same way. Indulgences that include sacrifices by the living have the same effect on those in purgatory whom God allows to SEE what their loved ones are up to on earth.

Are there abuses? SURE! Just like there are protestant preachers that stand up and say that if you contribute to their Rolls Royce purchase fund that God will give them back 5 times as much as you donate! Does that abuse mean that it is wrong to donate to the church? Of course not. The reforms of Trent do not repudiate the concept of man making a financial sacrifice to God out of love or pentitence, they merely acknowledge that allowing indulgences to be linked to money can have the appearance of scandal and can be used for ill gain by Judas clergy.

P.S. The wikipedia article would be fine except for the degraded definition of the word ‘punishment’ in our culture. In christian theological terms, punishment is less about angry venegeance and more about instruction in consequences. Change your viewpoint to that of a parent punishing a child and you might get it.

nice!!!