The selling of indulgences, which was Luther’s primary complaint, was indeed reformed. However, I believe that Luther was not formally condemned for that, but for other comments he made in 95 Theses, as well as statements made outside of the 95 Theses. For example, Exsurge Domine (the first papal pull against Luther) condemns those who deny the efficacy of indulgences, but does not condemn complaints about the selling of them.
I think we all know what you’re going to get if you keep posting like this
Yeah, there’s more going on here than he’s saying.
By the way you will be a Catholic for the rest of your life even if you walk away from the Church. There are no former Catholics. There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.
It would be awesome to have telegram receipts in the background of my paintings.
Actually no. Luther’s ninety-five theses included heresy. He stated that the pope could not use the treasury of merit to forgive temporal punishment of sin taught in the papal bull of Clement VI (Unigenitus Dei Filius, Jan. 25, 1343). Also he stated in the ninety-five theses that one could be certain that sins were forgiven by absolution. This is contrary to the necessity of contrition taught by the Catholic Church.
Some individuals, even highly placed individuals, did in fact try to sell indulgences. The Church, however, never authorized, or participated in, such sales, or such is my understanding from my study of history.
In 1927, an open letter was sent, via The Atlantic Monthly, to Al Smith asking him about his Catholic faith. (Smith was the governor of New York and he was the Democratic presidential candidate in 1928.) An encyclical from Leo XIII was mentioned, to which The governor asked “What the hell is an encyclical?”
Me too.
Well, maybe not all
but certainly most of them. I think if some (most?) of them were posted in a papal encyclical Catholics today would simply shrug and say “Yeah, sure!” But speaking of context, remember Martin Luther was coming out of an era of church history that included the Borgias and Julius II! Not exactly examplars of virtue.I agree. Encyclicals may be “too hard to read” if you trying to read the original Latin, but in English they’re pretty straightforward, logical, and filled with common sense! And yet I suspect only a tiny fraction of Catholics read them.
What can I say? I try! Best wishes go with you.
You and I think that, but when I attend Catholic Bible study and some older person there says they don’t understand some super-easy parable of Jesus that I learned at my mama’s knee and have heard explained from the pulpit about 50 times since, each time that gospel comes up in the cycle, it’s obvious some people are just not ready to tackle Papal encyclicals.
Faith in Christ and a common profession of faith with the Church covers any innocent errors or points of ignorance, since the whole truth is contained in Christ and the Church’s faith. As the Catechism says, Christ “is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65); “what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son” (CCC 65, quoting St. John of the Cross).
Until very recently, papal encyclicals were only even addressed to bishops. And theologians were the only others who really read them. In the Catholic Church we are one body and help bear each other’s burdens. Not everyone is expected to be a walking encyclopedia or catechism. Different members have different gifts and roles.