Catholic history is disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter suupah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LDNCatholic said:
I asked for a source.
Click to expand...
I know Fr. Seraphim Beshoner has talked about this in his podcasts on the history of the Catholic Church. I thought it was accepted historical fact (by both Catholic and Protestant historians). The Council of Trent obviously subsequently prohibited the sale of indulgencies as part of the counter reformation.
 
Michael96 said:
I know Fr. Seraphim Beshoner has talked about this in his podcasts on the history of the Catholic Church. I thought it was accepted historical fact (by both Catholic and Protestant historians). The Council of Trent obviously subsequently prohibited the sale of indulgencies as part of the counter reformation.
Click to expand...
Assume I do not know anything about history, assume I am a foreigner who has never heard about the Reformation. What source can be provided to show that the sale of indulgences built the basilica?
 
LDNCatholic said:
Assume I do not know anything about history, assume I am a foreigner who has never heard about the Reformation. What source can be provided to show that the sale of indulgences built the basilica?
Click to expand...
I’d go out and seek a good historian, but Wikipedia (which has not been contested on this issue, despite this page being under the watch of the Catholicism WikiProject) references the following Catholic website article on “The Historical Origin of Indulgences” by Fr. Enrico dal Covolo, S.D.B.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1054&CFID=16256720&CFTOKEN=64116746
 
Also, most people find the Encylcopedia Britannica trustworthy, and it has this to say in its article on Martin Luther.
*But the immediate cause of Luther’s public protest was an indulgence that Frederick had prohibited from his lands, though it was available in nearby territory. This was a jubilee indulgence, offering special privileges, the ostensible purpose of which was the rebuilding of St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. By a secret arrangement, half of the German proceeds were to go to the young Albert, archbishop of Mainz, who was deeply in debt owing to his rapid promotion to and payment for a number of high ecclesiastical offices.
Click to expand...
 
LDNCatholic said:
Assume I do not know anything about history, assume I am a foreigner who has never heard about the Reformation. What source can be provided to show that the sale of indulgences built the basilica?
Click to expand...
I will have to find the book again, but there is a very good work on Western Civ and the Church’s role in it.

Basically, the indulgencies could be earned from cash gifts if they fell under certain guidelines. The donation could not be instead of the normal monies they gave to the CHurch and they had to represent a sacrafice to the giver. This was done to allow craftsmen who could not come to Rome to donate time or talent but still wanted to help.

The problem came in that it was told to people that they were BUYING the indulgence, not earning it through a sacrifice.
 
rad said:
part 4

his is certainly no new Ultramontane teaching. It originates with Pope Nicholas, was repeated by a long line of medieval Popes, and is expounded by canonists.

Quote
POPE NICHOLAS I: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.” Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

POPE NICHOLAS I: “I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.” Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661.

POPE GREGORY IX: “Wherefore, if those things that I do, be said to be done not of man, but of God; what can you make me but God?”

POPE INNOCENT III: “It was said to me in the prophet: “I have set you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy, and to overthrow, to build and to plant”(Jer. 1:10)…Others were called to the role of caring, but only St. Peter was invested with the fullness of power [plenitudo potestatis]. See then what manner of servant this is, appointed over the household; he is indeed the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh…the midpoint between God and man… who can judge all things and is judged by no one.”
-Consecration Sermon, c. 1200, see Rome Has Spoken; Granfield, Patrick, The Limits of the Papacy:Authority and Autonomy in the Church, NY:Crossroad, 1987; p. 32.

POPE ST PIUS V: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”. Cardinal Cusa supports this statement.

FAMOUS BENEDICTINE CANONIST: “The pope can do all things God can do.” - Nicolaus de Tudeschis [1386-1445], “Commentaria” (lvi, 34)
Click to expand...
Sorry to barge in quite lately but here’s some bad news for those who use dubious citations and references:

the citation “Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para” is obscure. If you check his opera omnia (whole works) here (based on Migne’s Patrologia Latina) you will never in your lifetime find any document similar to the one above. Maybe because it does not exist in the documentation world?
Or maybe it only exists in someone’s fabrication?

I think there is a place for liars and those who further propagate those lies…
 
ralphinal said:
The problem came in that it was told to people that they were BUYING the indulgence, not earning it through a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Yes, we wouldn’t want the Gospel of Works to turn into a Gospel of Money. 😉

(I’m kidding, of course.)
 
Chancellare said:
Sorry to barge in quite lately but here’s some bad news for those who use dubious citations and references:

the citation “Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para” is obscure. If you check his opera omnia (whole works) here (based on Migne’s Patrologia Latina) you will never in your lifetime find any document similar to the one above. Maybe because it does not exist in the documentation world?
Or maybe it only exists in someone’s fabrication?

I think there is a place for liars and those who further propagate those lies…
Click to expand...
So the other citations are correct?
If so what is your response?
 
POPE NICHOLAS I: “I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.” Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661.

POPE GREGORY IX: “Wherefore, if those things that I do, be said to be done not of man, but of God; what can you make me but God?”

POPE INNOCENT III: “It was said to me in the prophet: “I have set you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy, and to overthrow, to build and to plant”(Jer. 1:10)…Others were called to the role of caring, but only St. Peter was invested with the fullness of power [plenitudo potestatis]. See then what manner of servant this is, appointed over the household; he is indeed the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of St. Peter, the Christ of the Lord, the God of Pharaoh…the midpoint between God and man… who can judge all things and is judged by no one.”
-Consecration Sermon, c. 1200, see Rome Has Spoken; Granfield, Patrick, The Limits of the Papacy:Authority and Autonomy in the Church, NY:Crossroad, 1987; p. 32.

POPE ST PIUS V: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”. Cardinal Cusa supports this statement.

FAMOUS BENEDICTINE CANONIST: “The pope can do all things God can do.” - Nicolaus de Tudeschis [1386-1445], “Commentaria” (lvi, 34)

Pretty damning if you ask me
 
ralphinal said:
And he refutes the claims that Catholics see the pope as God.
Click to expand...
Indeed - I can’t think of a single Catholic I know or have met (and I’ve met some odd ones!) who would ever think the Pope was divine.
 
Hisalone said:
this guy seems to have done the most research of all the ones I found on quick search.

sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-lord-god-popenot-part-1.html
Click to expand...
Thanks, Hisalone. Yes, that does shed some light on the matter.

I note that he says,
In the Catholic point of view, “we hold upon this Earth the place of God” makes perfect sense, as Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar (i.e. Representative) of Christ. What does a representative do? He “holds the place” of the person he represents! Far from claiming that he is God in the flesh, Pope Leo is just reaffirming his position as Christ’s representative (like a Prime Minister) on Earth.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a recurring theme in a lot of our discussions – that we (Catholics) will sometimes take a well-established concept and give it a new name (in this case, saying that the Pope “holds upon this Earth the place of God” instead of saying “vicar of Christ”).

Just like when we talk about “praying to Mary”. We’re not doing anything that we didn’t do from the beginning – we’re just honoring Mary and asking for her prayers – but calling it “praying to Mary” is a relatively late invention. (How late? I’m not really sure. I do know that St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of “praying to Mary.”)
 
suupah said:
you are absolutely right. the only problem i have here are the claims that the Catholic church makes of itself. Our pope is referred to as “your holiness”. THink about the implication of that title. The closer i became to God the more keenly aware of my sinfulness i became and the less i wanted to be considered in anyway shape or form holy. Can’t understand why anyone would accept the title, “your holiness”. But if you are going to accept titles such as these there should be something that sets you apart from mere human organizations. There for there is a higher standard for the church sealed in the spirit and guided by christ.
Click to expand...
The distate for titles such as “your holiness” and the like seems to me to be rather a product of Americanism. For instance, folks from other countries don’t seem to have a problem calling their judges, “Your Worship” and the like.

I don’t get so bent out of shape about titles. I’ve been in the military for the last 20 years, so I’m accustomed to gestures and speech which render respect to an office. For instance, former President Clinton was my “commander in chief,” but did I respect how he personally behaved? Not at all. But I submitted to his lawful authority and paid respect to the office he held.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top