T
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
Yes. There has been a dearth of Luther threads in the past few months. I’ll just introduce myself each time that you come back. As you are the only poster here with links and references to pro-Luther articles on Eric Svendsen’s anti-Catholic site, I’ll remember you. I’m Eden.
If you look on the link to his profile, it says "Dr. Swidler is Co-Founder with his wife Arlene Swidler in 1964 of the *“Journal of Ecumenical Studies”. *
I think it’s unlikely that Dr. Swidler was both a husband and a priest in 1964.
temple.edu/religion/faculty/swidler.html
It looks like you have given me an article from a magazine that appeared in 1964. This is not available online for a quick reference to respond. I’ll check with my library to see if they have it on microfilm. I’m sure that Dr. Swidler’s work has evolved over the past 40 years. Perhaps he has spoken about the Reformation more recently?
I don’t agree that I have defended the Church at all costs. I’ve stated that indulgences were not intended to be sold and that some members of clergy abused the use of indulgences. Your characterization of the Church as a sinister “money-making web” is, as I stated before, hyperbole. Conspiracy theories about the Church are not useful to ecumenical dialogue. I am sure that Dr. Swidler would disagree with your conclusion.
Are you sure about that? The only Bull that I find from 1510 is the lifting of the excommunication of Venice. I’ll look into it further. It seems unlikely that Pope Julius II issued a Bull regarding donations for St. Peter’s in 1510. The wording of the 1513 Bull would give the impression that this issue of indulgences for donations to the St. Peter’s fund was new.
Too be continued…
E
Eden
Guest
In your post #13 you stated that “The bull by Pope Julius II from 1510 which promoted an indulgence to help rebuild St. Peter’s was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web. Thus, there was a lot of money at stake, and Luther needed to be silenced.”
I have no evidence of a Papal Bull earlier than the innocuous 1513 Bull that I discussed in post #15. If you look at the post below, you see that the Archbishop of Mainz and Fr. Tetzel were moved into more powerful positions in 1515; two years after Pope Julius II’s death. Luther wrote the 95 theses 5 years after Pope Julius II’s death. As I stated before, the request for donations by benefactors to rebuild the church was not, in and of itself, corrupt.
To conclude that the Bull by Pope Julius “was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web” is a purposeful rephrasing of fact to make it appear that the Bull was issued to trick the faithful into parting with their money.
A more accurate statement would be “In 1513, Pope Julius II issued a Papal Bull. The Bull offered indulgences to those benefactors who had the means to donate to the building of a new church. The Archbishop of Mainz, Frederick of Ernestine Saxony and Fr. Tetzel corrupted the intention of the Bull by leading the faithful into believing that giving money for indulgences would buy their way out of purgatory.”
From the Catholic Answers library:
**"The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. **
In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: ‘Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.’"
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404qq.asp
"While we all can agree that there were members of the clergy who corrupted the intention of Pope Julius II, it borders on hysteria to claim that "The bull by Pope Julius II from 1510 which promoted an indulgence to help rebuild St. Peter’s was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web."
John M. Todd: “I have tried to give a picture of this man of gigantic accomplishment, a man, however,who was rather less than the hero and rather more than the mere villain of some older biographies. I attempted a previous picture in *Martin Luther, a Biographical Study, *written primarily for specialists in history and theology. One paragraph and the Appendix on Indulgences are reproduced in this book. The present study is an attempt to present the man more fully. Theology is indeed the inner stuff of the revolution he worked. But I start from the man, and in particular from his letters.”
religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1054
I have no evidence of a Papal Bull earlier than the innocuous 1513 Bull that I discussed in post #15. If you look at the post below, you see that the Archbishop of Mainz and Fr. Tetzel were moved into more powerful positions in 1515; two years after Pope Julius II’s death. Luther wrote the 95 theses 5 years after Pope Julius II’s death. As I stated before, the request for donations by benefactors to rebuild the church was not, in and of itself, corrupt.
To conclude that the Bull by Pope Julius “was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web” is a purposeful rephrasing of fact to make it appear that the Bull was issued to trick the faithful into parting with their money.
A more accurate statement would be “In 1513, Pope Julius II issued a Papal Bull. The Bull offered indulgences to those benefactors who had the means to donate to the building of a new church. The Archbishop of Mainz, Frederick of Ernestine Saxony and Fr. Tetzel corrupted the intention of the Bull by leading the faithful into believing that giving money for indulgences would buy their way out of purgatory.”
From the Catholic Answers library:
**"The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. **
In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: ‘Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.’"
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404qq.asp
If you look at my post #15, you will see that I never defended the Archbishop of Mainz or Fr. Tetzel:
"While we all can agree that there were members of the clergy who corrupted the intention of Pope Julius II, it borders on hysteria to claim that "The bull by Pope Julius II from 1510 which promoted an indulgence to help rebuild St. Peter’s was part of an extremely corrupted money-making web."
*Luther:A Life *was intended to be an expansion of *Martin Luther, a Biographical Study *that will “present the man more fully”. *Luther:A Life *would is a more thorough reference:
John M. Todd: “I have tried to give a picture of this man of gigantic accomplishment, a man, however,who was rather less than the hero and rather more than the mere villain of some older biographies. I attempted a previous picture in *Martin Luther, a Biographical Study, *written primarily for specialists in history and theology. One paragraph and the Appendix on Indulgences are reproduced in this book. The present study is an attempt to present the man more fully. Theology is indeed the inner stuff of the revolution he worked. But I start from the man, and in particular from his letters.”
religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=801&C=1054
E
Eden
Guest
It is relevant for an historically accurate picture of the atmosphere in Germany in the early 16th century. Frederick of Saxony was an integral part of the whole story. It would not be relevant if the intention is to demonize the Church, of course. Frederick had the power to filter what came through his land from the Vatican. Just as he later had the power to force the Lutheran faith on his populace. Here is the quote from John M. Todd that is crucial to understanding Frederick’s role (from post #16):
An important matter here was that he confined permission for the preaching of Indulgences to those sponsored locally; he would not grant permission for papal Indulgences issued from Rome to be preached in his lands. Money did not flow out.
Frederick of Saxony became Luther’s protector. His interest in both the Church and Luther’s movement was never theological. It was about money and power. I find that significant.
M
Mickey
Guest
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Eden,
“Pope Julius II issued the bull *Liquet omnibus * in 1510 establishing an indulgence the income from which would help pay for the building of St. Peter’s. (Luther, A Biographical Study, 114)
**From Luther’s Works 31:21 **
“The indulgence with which Luther came into direct contact through his parishioners was the jubilee indulgence announced by Pope Julius II for the year 1510, the proceeds of which were to be used in building the new basilica of St. Peter in Rome. After the death of Julius II in 1513, Leo X revived this indulgence.”
It is possible John Todd is in error, as LW states the indulgence was announced *for the year * 1510 (meaning it may have been pronounced earlier, say for instance, 1506 which- actually rings a bell in my memory, check 1506).
Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
- I am not an expert on Leonard Swidler, nor am I familiar with his personal biography. I have three or four reference works that refer to him as “Father Swidler”- and these sources are reputable scholars. For instance, both authors Richard Stauffer and James Atkinson refer to him with such a title. These authors are not writers on “anti-catholic” sites. Regardless, I refer you to Swidler’s work on Luther, as I’ve appreciated his insights. You would do well to track down his articles on Luther, as they are excellent examples of Luther de-vilification from a Catholic perspective.
- As to the “mystery” bull:
“Pope Julius II issued the bull *Liquet omnibus * in 1510 establishing an indulgence the income from which would help pay for the building of St. Peter’s. (Luther, A Biographical Study, 114)
**From Luther’s Works 31:21 **
“The indulgence with which Luther came into direct contact through his parishioners was the jubilee indulgence announced by Pope Julius II for the year 1510, the proceeds of which were to be used in building the new basilica of St. Peter in Rome. After the death of Julius II in 1513, Leo X revived this indulgence.”
It is possible John Todd is in error, as LW states the indulgence was announced *for the year * 1510 (meaning it may have been pronounced earlier, say for instance, 1506 which- actually rings a bell in my memory, check 1506).
- Luther strongly criticized Frederick’s “money making” indulgence practice as well as that perpetuated by the Papacy. I believe I mentioned this to you previously. The difference appears to be, Frederick had the integrity to heed Luther’s advise rather than simply tell him to be quiet or be excommunicated.
- I have utilized John Todd’s book *Luther: A Life * as well in my studies of Luther. A reading of both books would be beneficial to you, as it only appears you have access to a *few * sections of his work via the Internet. Good used on-line bookstores should be able to get both books for you at a reasonable price. After a careful reading of both, perhaps we can have a fruitful dialog.
Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Mickey said:
Hey- are you in submission to the Roman Pontiff yet? If no, why not?
JS
M
Mickey
Guest
What is that supposed to mean?
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
If i recall correctly, you are not a “Roman Catholic”- I was wondering if spending time on a board named “Catholic Answers” ever provided you a reasonable “answer” and perhaps brought you “home to Rome.”What is that supposed to mean?
Just curious really.
JS
E
Eden
Guest
I’m interested in seeing you de-vilify indulgences.
If he did establish a Bull in 1510 as well, what is sinister about it?
Again, the request for donations for building a new church on the site of the condemned old church is not against Church teaching. I’ve distinguished the difference between what the Bull requested vs. the corruption by clergy members several times.
Your characterization of the Church as issuing the indulgences to set up a “corrupt, money-making web” is *still *the issue.
Frederick of Saxony was a corrupt character, too. You continue to imply that corruption was to be found uniquely within the Church in the 16th century.
I don’t believe it is possible to have a “fruitful” dialogue with you as you continue to perpetuate the idea that indulgences and selling indulgences are one in the same.
I’m always open to book suggestions. I should add that I have a lot of books that I have been given recently which take precedence to anything on the Reformation: * The Imitation of Christ, The Philokalia, Sainte Therese de l’Enfant Jesus, The Way of a Pilgrim and St. Francis: Reluctant Saint *so it will be some time before I can dedicate myself to your suggestions.
M
Mickey
Guest
You must have me confused with someone else. I am Byzantine Catholic. Are you familiar with the Eastern Catholic Tradition? The shortest explanation would be similar to Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome.
M
Mickey
Guest
The Philokalia is amazing! You’ll enjoy that one Eden!
“The Way of the Pilgrim” is excellent also!
E
Eden
Guest
Wow. You really don’t know that much about the Church if you don’t understand the various rites within the Catholic Church. Mickey and I are both Catholic.
E
Eden
Guest
Thanks Mickey! My grandmother recommended it to me when I was visiting her on my vacation several weeks ago. My uncle introduced her to it. Since then, it’s been on her list of “must reads”.The Philokalia is amazing! You’ll enjoy that one Eden!
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hello Eden,
As I stated earlier, I don’t intend on dialoging with you over indulgences. I understand the point you’re making, and the apologetic you’re engaging in in order to free the Papacy of monetary exploitation via the indulgence. I find it strange that freeing the Papacy of abuse is so important to you. I’ve spoken with many Roman Catholics that admit many of the popes have done many bad things. I recall hearing Father Mitch Pacwa say that some of the popes probably are not in heaven (and he didn’t mean they were in purgatory).
Early in this thread I noted the practice of the indulgence developed over time, and became corrupted over time. If I were to spend the time dialoging with you over indulgences, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time on the corrupted practice, as Roman Catholics usually admit it has been abused, and Luther was right to attack the abuse. I would probably spend my time with you looking through the pages of the Bible in search of the apostles teaching about indulgences.
Regards,
James Swan
As I stated earlier, I don’t intend on dialoging with you over indulgences. I understand the point you’re making, and the apologetic you’re engaging in in order to free the Papacy of monetary exploitation via the indulgence. I find it strange that freeing the Papacy of abuse is so important to you. I’ve spoken with many Roman Catholics that admit many of the popes have done many bad things. I recall hearing Father Mitch Pacwa say that some of the popes probably are not in heaven (and he didn’t mean they were in purgatory).
Early in this thread I noted the practice of the indulgence developed over time, and became corrupted over time. If I were to spend the time dialoging with you over indulgences, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time on the corrupted practice, as Roman Catholics usually admit it has been abused, and Luther was right to attack the abuse. I would probably spend my time with you looking through the pages of the Bible in search of the apostles teaching about indulgences.
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Sorry Mick- I did not recall your specific background.
JS
E
Eden
Guest
Please do not accuse me of making statements that I never did. I never said there were never corrupt Popes. I said that the practice of issuing indulgences is not, in and of itself, objectionable.
I will repost from the Catholic Answers library:
**"The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. **
In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: ‘Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.’"
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404qq.asp
The abuse of indulgences in no way justifies corrupting the Gospel and the deposit of faith as Martin Luther did.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Eden- I’m sorry, perhaps i’ve misunderstood you. My intention has never been to *acuse * you .
As i’ve understood our sparse dialog, I originally argued both Julius and Leo were engaging in a corrupted use of the indulgence. Recall what I mentioned earlier- that the Catholic writer John Todd said Julius’s indulgence bull seemed *deliberately loose in places * that would lead one to believe that sins are forgiven by an indulgence. Then Pope Leo got the ball rolling for collecting the money, making a deal with the Archbishop of Mainz whom Todd said had “bargained with Rome to be allowed to keep half what was contributed for the indulgence…” which he owed to German bankers.
You counter-argued for the legitamacy and correct use of indulgences, as well as the legitamacy of the St. Peter’s indulgence: “There is nothing objectionable in the request by Pope Julius II’s request for donations to replace the old church which was crumbling and becoming unusable.” Thus, at least part of your argument was a defense of the 16th Century papacy and its use of the indulgence.
Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
E
Eden
Guest
Oh, yes. You are correct that I have defended the use of the indulgence in the 1513 Bull issued by Pope Julius. You are also correct that we have had some bad popes. How do the two equate into turning the 1513 Bull’s purpose into creating a “corrupt, money-making web”?
Your connection of the Bull on indulgences by Pope Julius II and a “corrupt, money-making web” are what I take objection to. Your use of a quote referring to Luther’s accusation that the papacy is the anti-Christ and the vilification of indulgences are also points to which I object.
I have clearly indicated that an issue of “indulgences” in and of itself is not sinful. The misrepresentation of what an indulgence is by corrupt clergy is a sub-category of the subject.
Issue of Indulgences does not equal sinful
Abuse of Indulgences does equal sinful
I would like to see the vilification of the indulgence removed from your work. Take for instance, your original response to Peter Wright’s question:
“About indulgences”? That is hardly “about indulgences”. It’s about an indulgence in the 16th century issued to build a new church. It is also not an indictment of the Bull. It is a description, again, of an ancient pledge-drive.
This is about indulgences:
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp
It suddenly occurs to me that perhaps you are mistakenly believing that Pope Julius II invented indulgences in the 16th century to make money. Did you think that the 1513 Bull created the notion of an indulgence?
Repost:
The abuse of indulgences in no way justifies corrupting the Gospel and the deposit of faith as Martin Luther did.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hello Eden,
As I suspected, I understood your argument(s). The majority of material I have utilized in this discussion is from Roman Catholic writers, and they verify my arguments.
Thank you for taking the time to post your personal feelings on this matter.
Best Wishes,
James Swan
As I suspected, I understood your argument(s). The majority of material I have utilized in this discussion is from Roman Catholic writers, and they verify my arguments.
Thank you for taking the time to post your personal feelings on this matter.
Best Wishes,
James Swan
- Status