T
tiggylou
Guest
If the popes are infallible…was Leo X right to have made the financial deal with Albert, in the selling of indulgences?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
This is quite a big “if”. Have you read the Church’s explanation of what “infallibilty” is? Please read this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia and re-ask your question.
I think you need to check your facts. The Pope never authorized the selling of indulgences.
M
mardukm
Guest
For everyone’s perusal, here is a link to the document referred to by the OP:
pitts.emory.edu/collections/Indulgence/Archdiocese_of_Mainz_Indulgence.pdf
Dear tiggylou,
The granting of indulgences has nothing to do with infallibility.
Does that answer your question?
Blessings,
Marduk
pitts.emory.edu/collections/Indulgence/Archdiocese_of_Mainz_Indulgence.pdf
Dear tiggylou,
The granting of indulgences has nothing to do with infallibility.
Does that answer your question?
Blessings,
Marduk
T
tiggylou
Guest
He didn’t…who did then? Because all my history books say that Albert of mainz wanted an extra seat…but his money was in estate not cash…the pope ran out of money to build St peters…so he allowed Albert to sell indulgences to allow albert to raise money for the seat, and half would go towards the building of St peters…
If you would let me know who authorized it, and that the pope had no business with Albert, it would be helpful. a book?? or a reliable website please???
T
tiggylou
Guest
Was it moral of him then?
T
theistgal
Guest
Even if it wasn’t, it has absolutely no bearing on the infallibility of the Church’s teaching about indulgences.
Do you understand how the Church defines infallibility? It has nothing to do with the moral character of the man who happens to be holding the office of Pope.
T
tiggylou
Guest
So you can have a completely immoral man, who because of his immorality is not living according to the will of God (this is hyperthetical - I am not dissin’ your popes), and still God grants him infallibility on interpreting the scriptures?
T
tiggylou
Guest
I don;t think I’ll ever understanding it completely, cos it’s another i disagree with. Because I don’t think that God shows favouritism,
G
Genesis315
Guest
While He doesn’t necessarily love one person more than another, He does bestow different charisms on differnet people for the good of the whole. For example, the OT Prophets had different charisms than everyone else, as did the Apostles. The fact that the successor of St. Peter has a charism than the rest of us do not, but which is for our good, is hardly surprising. It does not show favoritism. We will all be be judged as to how we used the gifts God gave us and a Pope is no different in that regard (and neither were the prophets and Apostles). All must use their gifts for the glory of God and good of others.
T
theistgal
Guest
Yes. Remember that we believe St. Peter was the first Pope - and didn’t St. Peter act immorally when he denied Christ three times? Yet Christ didn’t rescind that gift.
This isn’t a perfect analogy but it might help: Let’s say we elect an immoral man as President. (Hard to believe, I know, but stay with me!
).Even though the man is immoral in his private life, he can still govern effectively in his public life - correct?
So a Pope can be corrupt through and through and still manage to govern effectively as Pope. We believe the Holy Spirit would prevent such a man from enshrining any of his corruption into Church doctrine.
Does that make any sense at all? As I said, I know it’s not a perfect analogy.
M
mardukm
Guest
Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. The Pope indeed never authorized the “selling of indulgences,” if by that you mean that indulgences were being sold for personal gain. Such acts were specificially forbidden by a general council of the Latin Church in the 12th (13th?) century.
Raising funds to build a church is not considered “selling of indulgences” because no personal gain is being obtained - it is for the building of a church. As a Protestant, don’t you believe that tithing is a good act in the eyes of God? Giving money to build a Church has a similar “merit” in the eyes of God.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
Genesis315
Guest
It’s good to remember that charisms are gifts–so they do not depend on the merit of the recipient. Similarly, they are for the good of the whole people of God, not just the recipient. Thus, the prophet Balaam was essentially an apostate, yet he still prophecied truly. The same can be said for the high priest Caiaphas.
T
tiggylou
Guest
The pope may or may not have been gaining a financial benefit directly…but half the proceeds of the indulgences were going to help albert buy another seat…and that is personal gain…and that was illegal at the time, and Leo knew that.
T
tiggylou
Guest
It is ok…I get your analogy - examples are good for teachings certain truths aren;t they…guess thats why the bible needs interpretation…Yes. Remember that we believe St. Peter was the first Pope - and didn’t St. Peter act immorally when he denied Christ three times? Yet Christ didn’t rescind that gift.
This isn’t a perfect analogy but it might help: Let’s say we elect an immoral man as President. (Hard to believe, I know, but stay with me!
Even though the man is immoral in his private life, he can still govern effectively in his public life - correct?
So a Pope can be corrupt through and through and still manage to govern effectively as Pope. We believe the Holy Spirit would prevent such a man from enshrining any of his corruption into Church doctrine.
Does that make any sense at all? As I said, I know it’s not a perfect analogy.
Anyway…back to the point…I get your analogy as I said, however, if a politican goes out spouting ideological ideas and then is completely hypercritical (sorry, my spelling is awful!) he is hardly a good role model, and is likely to be voted out at the next election. How is the Holy Spirit meant to guide someone in truth if he doesn;t even live by the truth? God uses our humanity to accomodate to our understanding…why would God use someone who only professes him as lord with his mouth and not with his heart. it doesn’t make sense
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “buy another seat.” Can you please explain?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
cfrancis
Guest
The Bible contains examples of God, in His omnipotence, using those whom He wills. For example, in Jn 11:
Conspiracy to Kill Jesus
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs.
48 “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”
**51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, **
52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
T
tiggylou
Guest
Yeh, he can. But it seems a little odd that he would use someone who does not believe in him to lead his sheep! (when I say believe…I say that because God knows their heart and true allegiance) That just seems like wolves in sheeps clothing.
G
Genesis315
Guest
cfrancis, that’s the example I was thinking of earlier–thanks 
C
cfrancis
Guest
Is it odd He chose Judas to be one of the 12?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Just because someone sins, doesn’t mean they don’t believe in Him. Believers sin all the time. Anyone who says they are without sin is a liar.
- Status