Help with Reformation

[MHT32]

My history teacher was talking about the reformation, and said the Church built Notre Dame with the money it got from selling indulgences and that the Church (The institution itself) supported the selling of indulgences. I told her it didnt, and she ignored me and kept saying it did. If the Church built Notre Dame, how did it build it without some sort of money source (which my teacher says is indulgences) any help here?

 

[JonNC]

My history teacher was talking about the reformation, and said the Church built Notre Dame with the money it got from selling indulgences and that the Church (The institution itself) supported the selling of indulgences. I told her it didnt, and she ignored me and kept saying it did. If the Church built Notre Dame, how did it build it without some sort of money source (which my teacher says is indulgences) any help here?

I thought it was St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Jon

 

[constantconvert]

My history teacher was talking about the reformation, and said the Church built Notre Dame with the money it got from selling indulgences and that the Church (The institution itself) supported the selling of indulgences. I told her it didnt, and she ignored me and kept saying it did. If the Church built Notre Dame, how did it build it without some sort of money source (which my teacher says is indulgences) any help here?

If your teacher isn’t Catholic she will not be able to distinguish what The Church allows as opposed to what her members, who are sinners, do.

Here is the scoop as I understand it. First, although the Reformers split with the church in part because of the abuse of indulgences, Notre Dame (1200s) was built long before the Reformation (1500s).

Many cathedrals (like the ones in Chartres and Paris – both called Notre Dame) were built in part from money donated by people (alms) and the alms were used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. So technically there never was the direct selling of indulgences, but that may be splitting hairs as far as your teacher is concerned.

During the Reformation in France Hugenots did destroy some of the icons etc. in French cathedrals, like Chartres, not sure about the Notre Dame in Paris. Alms were used to rebuild the damage.

I’m not sure how much of the money to build these cathedrals came through indulgence money. At the council of Trent the abuse of these indulgences stopped and people were no longer granted indulgences via monetary means.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

My history teacher was talking about the reformation, and said the Church built Notre Dame with the money it got from selling indulgences and that the Church (The institution itself) supported the selling of indulgences. I told her it didnt, and she ignored me and kept saying it did. If the Church built Notre Dame, how did it build it without some sort of money source (which my teacher says is indulgences) any help here?

IT was St. Peter’s Basilica that was built from it. You need to give your history teacher a history lesson. She shouldn’t be teaching history about something she has no idea about.

 

[robwar]

Since your teacher seems to have some of her fact wrong, go to her and politely try to point out that Notre Dame was in the 1200’s and took almost 100 years to build and the reformation was in the 1500s and the money collected at the time was for St. Peters Basilica. If you are in a public school, she really should not be delving into religious comments about anyone’s faith. If she won’t listen to you, you can try to follow through with going to the department head or principal. good luck and don’t let it slide.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

IT was St. Peter’s Basilica that was built from it. You need to give your history teacher a history lesson. She shouldn’t be teaching history about something she has no idea about.

If teachers or college professors had to know history in order to teach it then every instructor every history class I’ve ever taken would have been disqualified. It’s horrifying how little knowledge of history there is, and how little discipline there is to check one’s supposed facts when teaching a class. I was taught in college that the Anglo-Saxons had no horses and that’s why the Normans beat them. Even worse, a friend of mine had a history professor teach his class that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when sitting on a particular chair in the Vatican that we believe to have belonged to St. Peter. :doh2:

 

[1ke]

In addition to the fact that she is completely wrong about Notre Dame, here is some information on indulgences themselves:

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences

catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences

 

[Maryann_C]

Since your teacher seems to have some of her fact wrong, go to her and politely try to point out that Notre Dame was in the 1200’s and took almost 100 years to build and the reformation was in the 1500s and the money collected at the time was for St. Peters Basilica. If you are in a public school, she really should not be delving into religious comments about anyone’s faith. If she won’t listen to you, you can try to follow through with going to the department head or principal. good luck and don’t let it slide.

Amen

 

[snarflemike]

Here is the scoop as I understand it. First, although the Reformers split with the church in part because of the abuse of indulgences, Notre Dame (1200s) was built long before the Reformation (1500s).

Talk about selling short!

 

[Maryann_C]

What she is talking about, although she has her facts wrong, is St Peter’s in Rome. This is what we were told by our Decon in RCIA and he is a lawyer so he is particular about his facts : St Peter’s was in need of repair and one of the Pope’s decided that since it was the Church of the people , the universal Church so all the Diocese should contribute. Now a Priest in Germany by the name of Johan Tetzel was the problem priest because of his overzealous desire and ability to collect the money .
I post a website here aloha.net/~mikesch/tetzel.htm that only has translated words from Tetzel ( bottom) and Luther and one other- no other opinion or commentary.I can not testify to the translators ability since it is not listed who translated it and although I am half German I do not have the text in the original language to compare .
It is clear that Luther at this point was already not a fan of the universal ( he calls it the collegiate church) leadership however it is also clear that Tetzel and Tetzel alone was the rouge priest and this was the proverbial ‘camel’ for Luther and others of the ‘Wittembergers’, not the Universal Church. There is also a huge socio political background behind the whole split and to help educate your teacher on this I recommend to her a book that she perhaps would be willing to read …I recommend you do ( in your spare time lol). It was written by a Dean of theology from Duke University 40 years ago and is already in its 11th edition - available on Amazon- and is essentially the bible of the history of the reformation. The Protestant Reformation by Hans J. Hillerbrand . It is excellent because it takes the reformation by country and looks at what was going on in each one separately. Frankly every Christian should read it. It was one of the books on my journey home and it was written by a protestant!

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have no doubt the teacher was correct.

The selling of indulgences for St. Peter’s was the focal point of Martin Luther’s objections, but naive to believe that the abuse did not begin centuries before.

The Church has been combating abuses of indulgences for a long time (such as at the provencial Council of Clovesho (in England) in 747). The practice of selling indulgences was established well enough in Chaucer’s day that one of the characters in the 14th-Century Canterbury Tales (the Pardoner) extorted the poor by selling indulgences and pocketing the proceeds.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame was funded in some part by the improper sale of indulgences.

Not that it matters as far as doctrine is concerned.

 

[snarflemike]

I must admit I don’t give much thought to a 500-year-old abuse - the abuses of our own age are damaging enough. But it did occur to me to wonder who are the modern decendents of the former Catholic indulgence sellers, and the irony is, well, ironic.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I have no doubt the teacher was correct.

The selling of indulgences for St. Peter’s was the focal point of Martin Luther’s objections, but naive to believe that the abuse did not begin centuries before.

The Church has been combating abuses of indulgences for a long time (such as at the provencial Council of Clovesho (in England) in 747). The practice of selling indulgences was established well enough in Chaucer’s day that one of the characters in the 14th-Century Canterbury Tales (the Pardoner) extorted the poor by selling indulgences and pocketing the proceeds.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame was funded in some part by the improper sale of indulgences.

Not that it matters as far as doctrine is concerned.

I may need some help on this, but as you say about the focal point being the selling of indulgences was or was not the real focal point??? It may have been from the placing of the 95 thesis on the door but I always thought the real problem with Luther was justification. I may be wrong on this, but we can all assume the teacher will not bring this up.
mdcpensive1

 

[DavidFilmer]

I may need some help on this, but as you say about the focal point being the selling of indulgences was or was not the real focal point??? It may have been from the placing of the 95 thesis on the door but I always thought the real problem with Luther was justification.

The proper name of the so-called “95 Thesis” is “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” (Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum). It was exclusively about the abuse of indulgences (not about indulgences themselves, but the abuse thereof). It does not mention justification (or sola Fide or sola Scriptura) - those disputes came much later.

Luther was exercised about St. Peter’s, which was being built in his time, and which prompted abuse on a large scale. As far as I know, Luther did not complain about past abuses of this nature, but I have no doubt they happened (as Chaucer plainly established).

 

[mdcpensive1]

The proper name of the so-called “95 Thesis” is “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” (Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum). It was excludively about the abuse of indulgences (not about indulgences themselves, but the abuse thereof). It does not mention justification (or sola Fide or sola Scriptura) - those disputes came much later.

Luther was exercised about St. Peter’s, which was being built in his time. As far as I know, Luther did not complain about past abuses, but I have no doubt they happened (as Chaucer plainly established).

Thanks for the info, I also heard that the indulgence abuse was more local in the area of Luther and not in places like Spain and other countries.
mdcpensive1

 

[DavidFilmer]

I also heard that the indulgence abuse was more local in the area of Luther and not in places like Spain and other countries.

There was a particular Dominican friar named Johann Tetzel, based in Frankfurt, who was a particularly egregious offender in the business of indulgence abuse. It was probably Tetzel’s activities that brought the matter so specifically to Luther’s attention.

At the time, Luther was an Augustinian priest and theological professor. He recognized Tetzel’s abuse for what it was, and spoke out against it (which is really what a faithful Catholic priest ought to do).

I doubt that other regions had a particular individual who was implicated more in penance abuse than Tetzel, but there is no doubt that abuse was happening throughout the Catholic world.

FWIW, I don’t wish to suggest any relation between the ultimate motives of Tetzel and Chaucer’s character, the Pardoner. Tetzel may have allowed zeal to overshadow judgement, but there was never any implication that he sought to personally benefit in any way (unlike the Pardoner, who pocketed the proceeds). As far as we know, Tetzel was faithful to his Vow of Poverty, and any monies that he collected were sent to support the construction of St. Peter’s (and Luther himself did not suggest otherwise).

 

[Maryann_C]

Thanks for the info, I also heard that the indulgence abuse was more local in the area of Luther and not in places like Spain and other countries.
mdcpensive1

Did you bother to read Luther and Tetzel’s own words at the link I gave you? the quotes are not very long. That would have answered some of the other questions you posted. I thought your OP was what the teacher said was not quite correct ? You hunch was true it was not the selling of indulgences to build Notre Dame that sparked off the Reformation as led by people like Luther. The question was not about Church abuses but what caused the reformation I thought?

 

[robwar]

It really is not fair to compare the building and funding of the large churches such as Notre Dame which took over 100 years and most of them did to the selling of indulgences and their abuses to St. Peters in Rome. Since most of them took many many years to build you can’t make a blanket statement about how you think they may have been funded. If this is a public school, they are skating on thin ice because they are making inaccurate comments about faith matters and lumping together problems that lead to the reformation to how the great churches in Europe may or may not have been funded. All of this together is to paint the Catholic Church in a bad light. This teacher shouldn’t be doing this and the OP has a right to complain.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have no doubt the teacher was correct.

The selling of indulgences for St. Peter’s was the focal point of Martin Luther’s objections, but naive to believe that the abuse did not begin centuries before.

The Church has been combating abuses of indulgences for a long time (such as at the provencial Council of Clovesho (in England) in 747). The practice of selling indulgences was established well enough in Chaucer’s day that one of the characters in the 14th-Century Canterbury Tales (the Pardoner) extorted the poor by selling indulgences and pocketing the proceeds.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame was funded in some part by the improper sale of indulgences.

Not that it matters as far as doctrine is concerned.

Good point. There are already complaints about the sale of indulgences in the Carmina Burana which were composed in the 11th and 12th century and thus predate Martin Luther by several hundred years. Some of the poetry clearly originates in Paris, which would align approximately with the construction of Notre Dame.

I don’t really know anything about the circumstances behind the construction of Notre Dame, but best to do the research and thinking BEFORE condemning a teacher. Whether by intent or accident, there’s a good chance she’s right.