Hasn't time proven that Protestanism always leads to Heresy

[ESMDHokie77]

The doctrine of selling indulgences and the practice of bribing cardinals to elect certain people as Pope needed to change.

That was never a doctrine, and that was an immoral practice. Those were never teachings of the Church.

And is it really a reformation if you leave the entity you’re trying to reform?

 

[Alix1912]

That was never a doctrine, and that was an immoral practice. Those were never teachings of the Church.

And is it really a reformation if you leave the entity you’re trying to reform?

It really doesn’t matter what you want to call it. Historically it is called the Reformation. I’m sorry that you don;t like the name…take that up with several hundred years of historically calling the time period that, about a billion history books and historians that call it that. Again you can call a dog, a cat but that’s not it’s name and people are going to question you state of mind.

 

[Hail_Linus]

The doctrine of selling indulgences and the practice of bribing cardinals to elect certain people as Pope needed to change.

You know I have been investigating the accusation of selling indulgences and I can’t find any proof. All I find is an accusation against one priest, Johan Tetzel. The most that can be said about him is that he exaggerated indulgences for the dead. His teaching on indulgences for the living was perfect. In general he was a very moral person.

Wow, a reformation over one man’s incorrect teaching of indulgences for the dead and it appears he did not even really sell indulgences. Let’s not even mention that selling indulgences was never even a doctrine of the Church.

I would appreciate any proof you can provide.

 

[Alix1912]

10 seconds on Wikipedia whose souces are quoted in the articles Bibliography

Link to Article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

Read the sections on Abuses, The Reformation, and the Council of Trent.

Indulgences were sold, the practice was condoned by the Pope, and while Tetzel first brought it to Martin Luther’s attention the practice of selling indulgences was not one priest misbehaving. One could argue it was institutionalized. It wasn’t until after the Council of Trent that the practice of taking monetary compensation for indulgences was banned.

I’m sorry but there is more to the Reformation than just indulgences. It was also about the many other abuses the Vatican had at the time as well. The pope actually enforced a tax on priests with mistresses, the vatican ran a couple of brothels, the Papacy was basically bought by the Borgia’s, Pope Alexander father 7 kids by 2 different mistresses WHILE he was Pope.

The problems were not isolated, and the Catholic Church showed no intention of correcting them until AFTER the Reformation was in full swing and they had no choice but to address them.

By claiming you can find no historical sources, and that indulgences weren’t really sold undermines not only your statements, but also your church. Seriously, who wants to join a church populated be people that refuse to admit that their church has ever had problems in the past, trivialize history, and renames historical periods to suit themselves.

I’m sorry but there was corruption, it was real, and it was bad. It needed to be fixed. Had the Catholic Church addressed it themselves before it got to the point it did in the 1500’s perhaps the Reformation would not have been so divisive, or have happened. However they did not…and this is the legacy they have to live with. You cannot blame Luther for pointing out the issues he saw. That’s like blaming the accountant who blows the whistle on a company that is cooking the books…is it really the accountant’s fault that the CEO is corrupt. The company might be a great company…but what it’s leaders were doing was still wrong.

 

[Hail_Linus]

10 seconds on Wikipedia whose souces are quoted in the articles Bibliography

Link to Article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

Read the sections on Abuses, The Reformation, and the Council of Trent.

Indulgences were sold, the practice was condoned by the Pope, and while Tetzel first brought it to Martin Luther’s attention the practice of selling indulgences was not one priest misbehaving. One could argue it was institutionalized. It wasn’t until after the Council of Trent that the practice of taking monetary compensation for indulgences was banned.

I’m sorry but there is more to the Reformation than just indulgences. It was also about the many other abuses the Vatican had at the time as well. The pope actually enforced a tax on priests with mistresses, the vatican ran a couple of brothels, the Papacy was basically bought by the Borgia’s, Pope Alexander father 7 kids by 2 different mistresses WHILE he was Pope.

The problems were not isolated, and the Catholic Church showed no intention of correcting them until AFTER the Reformation was in full swing and they had no choice but to address them.

By claiming you can find no historical sources, and that indulgences weren’t really sold undermines not only your statements, but also your church. Seriously, who wants to join a church populated be people that refuse to admit that their church has ever had problems in the past, trivialize history, and renames historical periods to suit themselves.

I’m sorry but there was corruption, it was real, and it was bad. It needed to be fixed. Had the Catholic Church addressed it themselves before it got to the point it did in the 1500’s perhaps the Reformation would not have been so divisive, or have happened. However they did not…and this is the legacy they have to live with. You cannot blame Luther for pointing out the issues he saw. That’s like blaming the accountant who blows the whistle on a company that is cooking the books…is it really the accountant’s fault that the CEO is corrupt. The company might be a great company…but what it’s leaders were doing was still wrong.

I love being chastised by a person who gets his education from an encyclopedia. The wikipedia article is very superficial and is full of straw men. When I investigate a subject I go beyond an enyclopedia.

He are things for you to consider:

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving indulgences for giving alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The Church does not do things like that any more because of the accusations.
2. The possible problem with Tetzel is that he may have told people that they did not need to have contrition. Interestingly, no one has ever accused him of selling indulgences for the living.

I do not see any proof that Tetzel actually did this. All we have is an accusation from Luther claiming that Tetzel said, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Even this article says it is only attributed to him but it does not say it is a fact.

By the way, do you know what an indulgence is? I only ask this because a Lutheran once told me the reformation was started because men were buying indulgences from the Church so they could indulge themselves with prostitutes.

If you do not understand indulgences then you cannot understand whether they have been purchased.

Finally, if the problem was the selling of indulgences why do you also object to the free ones?

 

[Alix1912]

I love being chastised by a person who gets his education from an encyclopedia. The wikipedia article is very superficial and is full of straw men. When I investigate a subject I go beyond an enyclopedia.

He are things for you to consider:

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving indulgences for giving alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The Church does not do things like that any more because of the accusations.
2. The possible problem with Tetzel is that he may have told people that they did not need to have contrition. Interestingly, no one has ever accused him of selling indulgences for the living.

I do not see any proof that Tetzel actually did this. All we have is an accusation from Luther claiming that Tetzel said, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” Even this article says it is only attributed to him but it does not say it is a fact.

By the way, do you know what an indulgence is? I only ask this because a Lutheran once told me the reformation was started because men were buying indulgences from the Church so they could indulge themselves with prostitutes.

If you do not understand indulgences then you cannot understand whether they have been purchased.

Finally, if the problem was the selling of indulgences why do you also object to the free ones?

One: I’m a she not a he
Two: I did not get my education from an encyclopedia. I actually got a pretty good education about the history of Lutheranism, from my confirmation classes, College course work, and my own reading. I was simply trying to demonstrate that with little to no effort there is actual backing to be found to show that the abuse of indulgences was not isolated, not just one person, and not a figment of Luther’s imagination.
Three: I actually did read the link I posted, so yeah…I do know what an indulgence is. And while you might have needed one to reduce the penance required for the sin of fornication, they were also applied for other things as well.
Four: I never said anywhere I object to a freely given indulgence, though I am wary of the practice as it can be a source of misunderstanding and abuse still.

Giving alms to build a church in exchange for a lessened penance or time in purgatory is still in essense selling forgiveness, depending on the intent behind it. And the practice WAS abused and that abuse was wrong. Tetzel did sell indulgences and hawked them using nasty plays and speeches about the suffering in purgatory, he was known to exaggerate, and whether or not he actually said the quoted phrase is a mute point. The money he was rasing went not to the building of churches but to the Archbishop of Mainz to pay his debts owed to a German Banker.

If the sale of indulgences was not going on, and being abused why did the church ban the practice of accepting money for indulgences in anyway shortly after the council of Trent?

Indulgences make me wary for any reason as they can open the door to abuse and it can easily be misinterpreted as being able to “work” or “pay” off your sins regardless of contrition.

Again, just because you don’t like the fact that every Christian in the world is not in lock step with the Vatican doesn’t mean you can trivialize what happened during the Reformation. There were valid issues that needed to be addressed and were not being addressed. There was corruption. And as we all know…corruption rarely reforms itself. As seen by the fact that the council of Trent did not happen until almost 40 years after the original complaints were made.

If there had been no corruption, no problems, no things that the leaders of the Church did wrong…then why have a counter reformation, why attempt correct the thing, if nothing was wrong in the first place.

It is unfortunate that the Christian church is divided. However, by trying to pretend the issues that cause the seperation never existed will not fix this, instead it will drive bigger wedges into the divides.

 

[Hail_Linus]

One: I’m a she not a he
Two: I did not get my education from an encyclopedia. I actually got a pretty good education about the history of Lutheranism, from my confirmation classes, College course work, and my own reading. I was simply trying to demonstrate that with little to no effort there is actual backing to be found to show that the abuse of indulgences was not isolated, not just one person, and not a figment of Luther’s imagination.

1. I am talking about going deeper to find anything beyond accusations. I do this with all topics, not just religious ones.
2. It is very possible that Luther misunderstood his actions. It is very clear in his 95 thesis that he had a poor understanding of Catholic theology not mention all of the contradictions.

Three: I actually did read the link I posted, so yeah…I do know what an indulgence is. And while you might have needed one to reduce the penance required for the sin of fornication, they were also applied for other things as well.
Four: I never said anywhere I object to a freely given indulgence, though I am wary of the practice as it can be a source of misunderstanding and abuse still.

It is possible to abuse anything, Christians (including Catholics) misunderstand and abuse their acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior

Giving alms to build a church in exchange for a lessened penance or time in purgatory is still in essense selling forgiveness, depending on the intent behind it. And the practice WAS abused and that abuse was wrong.

This is one of the things I am questioning. I cannot find any actual proof that the bad intent was there by either Tetzel or those who received pennance

Tetzel did sell indulgences and hawked them using nasty plays and speeches about the suffering in purgatory, he was known to exaggerate, and whether or not he actually said the quoted phrase is a mute point.     The money he was rasing went not to the building of churches but to the Archbishop of Mainz to pay his debts owed to a German Banker.

1. I want to know if there are any transcriptions of any of these plays and speeches.
2. Is there any documentation about payments to the Archbishop? Anyway this would be a separate sin.

If the sale of indulgences was not going on, and being abused why did the church ban the practice of accepting money for indulgences in anyway shortly after the council of Trent?

The Church was trying to end the accusations from reformers. While the practice is banned, there is no teaching that it is theologically wrong.

Again, just because you don’t like the fact that every Christian in the world is not in lock step with the Vatican doesn’t mean you can trivialize what happened during the Reformation. There were valid issues that needed to be addressed and were not being addressed. There was corruption. And as we all know…corruption rarely reforms itself. As seen by the fact that the council of Trent did not happen until almost 40 years after the original complaints were made.

If there had been no corruption, no problems, no things that the leaders of the Church did wrong…then why have a counter reformation, why attempt correct the thing, if nothing was wrong in the first place.

You do not understand my intentions. I have lost faith in the history that we have been taught on all subjects. I have come to learn that many things are wrong. I simply want to know the truth.

Anyway, there was Corruption in the Church long before reformation and there is still corruption.

It is unfortunate that the Christian church is divided. However, by trying to pretend the issues that cause the seperation never existed will not fix this, instead it will drive bigger wedges into the divides.

I am sorry you do not understand my intentions. I simply refuse to have history spoon fed to me. I have found too many errors in many topics.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Giving alms to build a church in exchange for a lessened penance or time in purgatory is still in essense selling forgiveness, depending on the intent behind it.

(…)

Indulgences make me wary for any reason as they can open the door to abuse and it can easily be misinterpreted as being able to “work” or “pay” off your sins regardless of contrition.

Indulgences aren’t sales of forgiveness… you have to be contrite and already forgiven in the sacrament of penance. Once you are forgiven and are contrite, the indulgence can lessen the penalty that you must pay for sinning.

 

[rainman10]

The doctrine of selling indulgences and the practice of bribing cardinals to elect certain people as Pope needed to change.

Also the Reformation is an actual historical time period…it’s beginning signaled by Luther and it’s ending generally placed at the Council of Trent (which would never have happened without Protestant’s breaking away). To call it by anything other than it’s name is silly. That is like calling the American Revolution the silly colonial rebellion. It’s not the historically accurate name for the time period, and simply reinforces the bad image of Catholics being holier than thou to protestants.

Sorry, but the selling of indulgences or the practice of bribing Cardinals is not Church doctrine.
As I stated before, there were people in the Church that were corrupt, but the Church itself was never corrupt. Its teachings on faith and morals have always been correct and followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. The main result of the reformation was the fragmentation of Christianity and resulted in the thousands of denominations we have today. The fact that you feel inferior to Catholics seems to be a personal problem. Catholics do not feel we are holier than thou, we just know that our Church is the Church that Jesus Christ started and has remained faithful to His teachings.

 

[rainman10]

Alix1912…
Has the reformation ended?? When one protestant denomination breaks away from another, isn’t that new denomination reforming the previous one?

 

[Alix1912]

Sorry, but the selling of indulgences or the practice of bribing Cardinals is not Church doctrine.
As I stated before, there were people in the Church that were corrupt, but the Church itself was never corrupt. Its teachings on faith and morals have always been correct and followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. The main result of the reformation was the fragmentation of Christianity and resulted in the thousands of denominations we have today. The fact that you feel inferior to Catholics seems to be a personal problem. Catholics do not feel we are holier than thou, we just know that our Church is the Church that Jesus Christ started and has remained faithful to His teachings.

I don’t feel inferior to Catholics. I don’t feel superior either. I believe that my denomination is teaching truth. You don’t, I’m OK with that. I don’t run around calling you a heretic, or saying mean things about you or your church…yet this thread is based on calling protestants heretics, and assuming they are inferior…don’t project your issues onto me.

With regards to doctrine vrs. corruption. If a companies CEO and upper management is corrupt and not following the companies stated policies and guide lines, does it really matter what the guidelines and policies are if they are not being followed. Doesn’t the corruption still need to be dealt with and fixed? So regardless of Church Doctrine, the corruption that was rampant in the church in the 1500’s needed to be fixed. People tried to do that and were excommunicated for their efforts. It wasn’t until almost 50 years later that any attempt was made to fix the issues at hand.

The Catholic Church today is largely free of these problems, and what corruption or bad leadership exists is no more or less than what is found in any protestant denomination, secular organization, etc. of any size. My church, the LCMS, has some doctrinal differences with the Catholic Church, but they generally aren’t that huge compared to most other Christian Denominations. The main issue that I and most other protestants have with the Catholic Church often boils down to attitude.

So Catholics many on this forum and in person treat those who are protestant as inferior, stupid, uneducated children. It is hurtful and mean. They project their superiority onto us and assume we just don’t feel good about ourselves. Many protestants actually have studied and learned and believe whole heartedly in their churchs. I know I do, so when I am treated like I’m dumb…it kinda grates on my nerves and makes me less inclined to want to associate with Catholics. I think this is where the bulk of the Anti Catholics get their ammo and motivation from.

 

[Alix1912]

Alix1912…
Has the reformation ended?? When one protestant denomination breaks away from another, isn’t that new denomination reforming the previous one?

The time period historically refered to as The Protestant Reformation offically by most historians is considered to have ended in the mid 1600’s when a treaty ending the European Religous Wars was signed.

As to since then…I would guess that is up to how you want to interpret it. Most churches that are High Litergical can trace their roots back to the 1500-1600’s. The fundamentalists and non denominational churchs are a product of the last 200 or so years. So I don’t really consider them reformation churchs. Again my 2 cents.

 

[Hail_Linus]

I don’t feel inferior to Catholics. I don’t feel superior either. I believe that my denomination is teaching truth. You don’t, I’m OK with that. I don’t run around calling you a heretic, or saying mean things about you or your church…yet this thread is based on calling protestants heretics, and assuming they are inferior…don’t project your issues onto me.
(

• I obviously did a poor job of explaining the purpose of this thread. The purpose was not to call Protestants heretics. The Purpose was to look at the Catholic Church and the Original Reformers and compare which one has spawned more heresies from each sides own perspective since the Reformation. My point is the the Reformation has spawned teachings that would be considered heresy by the original reformers. Since the time of the Reformation Catholicism has remained virtually unchanged. Many Protestants have argued that the Catholic Church has strayed from first century Christianity. I am merely asserting that Protestantism has a propensity to stray from its own teachings. Catholicism has a propensity not to stary from its own teachings.
• I think we should be honest and call each other heretics. I am not insulted if you call me a heretic. A Lutheran should believe that Catholics are heretics. Why else would a person be Lutheran or any denomination if she did not believe Catholics are heretics. We are having a friendly discussion/debate. However, I will agree that we need to try to keep it friendly. It’s easy to be misunderstood.

 

[nhylan]

• I think we should be honest and call each other heretics. I am not insulted if you call me a heretic. A Lutheran should believe that Catholics are heretics. Why else would a person be Lutheran or any denomination if she did not believe Catholics are heretics. We are having a friendly discussion/debate. However, I will agree that we need to try to keep it friendly. It’s easy to be misunderstood.

I think this is a big understanding between the mainstream Protestant Churches and Roman Catholicism. I think Lutheranism is largely the same way (i think) but Anglicans don’t view Catholics as heretics (modern Anglicans). Your church is just another authentic context within the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

 

[Alix1912]

• I obviously did a poor job of explaining the purpose of this thread. The purpose was not to call Protestants heretics. The Purpose was to look at the Catholic Church and the Original Reformers and compare which one has spawned more heresies from each sides own perspective since the Reformation. My point is the the Reformation has spawned teachings that would be considered heresy by the original reformers. Since the time of the Reformation Catholicism has remained virtually unchanged. Many Protestants have argued that the Catholic Church has strayed from first century Christianity. I am merely asserting that Protestantism has a propensity to stray from its own teachings. Catholicism has a propensity not to stary from its own teachings.
• I think we should be honest and call each other heretics. I am not insulted if you call me a heretic. A Lutheran should believe that Catholics are heretics. Why else would a person be Lutheran or any denomination if she did not believe Catholics are heretics. We are having a friendly discussion/debate. However, I will agree that we need to try to keep it friendly. It’s easy to be misunderstood.

I agree that Luther himself would be shocked at the doctrine of the ELCA, and might even possibly declare it heretical. He might be even be disappointed at some of the traditions that are no longer practiced even in the LCMS. There are some very odd protestant churches out there. Just because a Church’s doctrine has remained somewhat unchanged (I would argue that the concept of the papacy and it’s role today is very different from what Peter Did), and there have been doctrinal clarifications/changes doesn;t mean everyone else is a heretic.

A heretic is someone who speaks out against the religon they actually belong to in a false or misleading way. A Lutheran who was never Catholic is not a Catholic heretic. A Catholic who actively speaks out against the Catholic Church, and tries to corrupt it’s teachings is a Catholic heretic. You can’t be a heretic to the Lutheran Church as you aren’t Lutheran. Ok that was a poor attempt to explain a heretic, but it is actually defined quite similarly in paper by John Paul II. Note: because Luther started out Catholic, he is rightly considered a heretic to the Catholic Church of the time.

I think this is a big understanding between the mainstream Protestant Churches and Roman Catholicism. I think Lutheranism is largely the same way (i think) but Anglicans don’t view Catholics as heretics (modern Anglicans). Your church is just another authentic context within the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

So true:thumbsup:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Catholics and Orthodox are often accused by Protestants of altering Christianity and becoming heretical. Yet since the time of the reformation Catholics and Orthodox have remained the same in their theology which gives credence to their belief that they have never changed and are loyal to the first century Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, have never stopped changing. It is safe to assume the reformers would view all modern day Protestants as heretics. Even the Lutherans and Protestants have not remained loyal to Luther and Calvin. The King James Bible, beloved by so many Protestants, originally contained the Deuterocanonical books, and they were considered inspired scripture. It even seems that the Church of England has fulfilled Aldous Huxley’s prophesy that one day the Archbishop of Canterbury would become Arch-Community Songster making the sign of the T instead of the sign of the cross.

Protestantism has proven that it is a recipe for theological change. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have proven immune to changes of theology.

Good show.

 

[Hail_Linus]

A heretic is someone who speaks out against the religon they actually belong to in a false or misleading way. A Lutheran who was never Catholic is not a Catholic heretic. A Catholic who actively speaks out against the Catholic Church, and tries to corrupt it’s teachings is a Catholic heretic. You can’t be a heretic to the Lutheran Church as you aren’t Lutheran. Ok that was a poor attempt to explain a heretic, but it is actually defined quite similarly in paper by John Paul II. Note: because Luther started out Catholic, he is rightly considered a heretic to the Catholic Church of the time.

In a way you are correct. It really depends on the context of the discussion. Sometimes you might have to agree on the definition in order to have the discussion. Much like the definitions section of a statute or contract.

That said…I think we might be able to negotiate a deal.

Let’s agree not to call a person a heretic. However, for the sake of honest conversation, l think we should feel free to call a teaching/doctrine a heresy/heretical.

 

[joe370]

Jesus said:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Leaving the Catholic church out of it for the moment, where can one go, in the protestant sphere, to find “all truth” via the guidance of the holy spirit?

Do you know any Protestants? Are you friends with them? Have you attended Protestant churches and read up on their beliefs, as well as experienced Protestantism in person?

The basic message–that Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and will save those who believe in Him remains unchanged. John 3:16 is still the essence of Christianity for many Protestants and Catholics as well. Therefore the accusation of “heresy” is not warranted, as the basic theology is constant. Heresy refers to theology, not Christian practices.

Many Protestants, especially Baptists, would say that change is proof that they are living Christianity the way Christ intended His people to live it. Conversely, some Protestants would say that the Catholic and Orthodox insistence on clinging to ancient practices is proof that they have failed to allow the Holy Spirit to lead them.

Protestants point to passages such as Matthew 9: 16-17, in which Jesus speaks of putting new wine in new wineskins."

Protestants don’t accept that the practice of Christianity remains unchanged through the centuries. Just as the Jewish Christians moved out of the synagogues into home churches and eventualy into large buildings, and just as those large buildings were different in different parts of the world, we continue to re-make “church” and “worship” and re-define exactly “how” we should “do church” and practice worship. This is a good thing, according to many Protestants.

Many Protestants find the ancient Catholic and Orthodox practices, worship styles, music, prayers, etc. “ritualistic” and utterly irrelevant to modern man. They believe that the Holy Spirit is constantly working to update Christian practices, giving us new music, new architectures, etc.

I will admit that I tend to think along Protestant lines when it comes to “church.” I find the past quaint and interesting, but not relevant to me personally. I have a very difficult time with ancient worship–to me it is theatrical. I can’t see God in it. I see man–a choreographed, scripted “play” instead of a “Mass.” I have little interest in the past, other than to preserve a record of it so that we will always remember where we came from and learn from our mistakes. But as far as I’m concerned, we’re no longer there. We’re HERE, NOW, and I for one want to live modern, not ancient.

I respect those who feel differently. And I also want to make it clear that I submit to the Church in whatever they ask us to do and practice, even if it doesn’t please me personally. I understand and agree that “it’s not all about me.”

 

[hn160]

why is it that Catholics just quite bring themselves to admit that the church back in Luther’s time and before was corrupt and in need of reform. Every time a reformer came to the fore, they were called heretics and killed. Whether you like it or not the some of the Popes and Cardinals had mistress, The Popes were more concerned about secular power by playing France against Spain or the Holy Roman Empire. Wealthy families were allowed to buy Bishoprics for instance the Archbishop of Mainz.
Luther was kicked out of the church because the church couldn’t bring itself to discuss reform. Quite possibly the reforms that did take place long after, there wouldn’t be a need for Luther. By the way, show me in the Bible where indulgences are called for and especially back in Luther’s time where they were for sale. This also goes for purgatory. Otherwise PAX

 

[rainman10]

why is it that Catholics just quite bring themselves to admit that the church back in Luther’s time and before was corrupt and in need of reform. Every time a reformer came to the fore, they were called heretics and killed. Whether you like it or not the some of the Popes and Cardinals had mistress, The Popes were more concerned about secular power by playing France against Spain or the Holy Roman Empire. Wealthy families were allowed to buy Bishoprics for instance the Archbishop of Mainz.
Luther was kicked out of the church because the church couldn’t bring itself to discuss reform. Quite possibly the reforms that did take place long after, there wouldn’t be a need for Luther. By the way, show me in the Bible where indulgences are called for and especially back in Luther’s time where they were for sale. This also goes for purgatory. Otherwise PAX

Please show in the Bible where Luther had the authority to change Church doctrine or to change the Bible itself. He was, as you put it, kicked out of the Church because he tried to change doctrine. Catholics do not refuse to admit the corruption. That has been stated many times on various threads, so I don’t know where you get that information from.