Luther

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

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.

I see that you are unwilling to make the distinction between indulgences and the abuse of indulgences. A balanced review of the Reformation would distinguish between what an indulgence was* meant* to be and how it was abused. To neglect to make the distinction is clearly an attempt to demonize the Church rather than to investigate the events leading to the Reformation.

Not only is the purpose and teaching of indulgences not the epitome of evil and corruption, they continue to be spiritually enriching today:

***10-August-2005-- Catholic World News Brief ***http://www.ewtn.com/images/printer.gif

SPECIAL INDULGENCES FOR WORLD YOUTH DAY

**Aug. 10 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI has granted two special indulgences for World Youth Day, which will be held in Cologne from August 16 to 21. **

**According to a Latin-language decree of the Apostolic Penitentiary dated August 2 and made public August 8, a plenary indulgence is available to the faithful who attend the sacred functions of World Youth Day and also “attentively and religiously” participate in its solemn conclusion on Sunday, August 21. The decree lists the additional conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain this or any other plenary indulgence: sacramental Confession, reception of Holy Communion, prayer for the intention of the Holy Father, and a soul free from attachment to any sin. **

**A partial indulgence is available to all the other faithful, wherever they may be during World Youth Day, if, with a contrite heart, they pray fervently that Christian youth **

**- be strengthened in the profession of the Faith; **

**- be confirmed in love and reverence toward their parents; and **

**- form a firm resolution to follow “the holy norms of the Gospel and Mother Church” in living out their present or future family life, or whatever vocation they are called to by God. **

Source: ewtn.com/vnews/headlines.asp

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

I see that you are unwilling to make the distinction between indulgences and the abuse of indulgences. A balanced review of the Reformation would distinguish between what an indulgence was* meant* to be and how it was abused. To neglect to make the distinction is clearly an attempt to demonize the Church rather than to investigate the events leading to the Reformation.

A careful reading of my comments within this thread will not support your conclusion.

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

A careful reading of my comments within this thread will not support your conclusion.

I agree. Your comments do not support the conclusion that indulgences were not intrinsically evil and that there should be a distinction between what an indulgence was* meant* to be and how they were abused.

As I said, I agree. That is what concerns me. Without including a larger picture defining indulgences as benign in theory, your comments do not support my conclusion. As an extension, your comments do not support reality. Vilifying indulgences to boost Martin Luther’s legitimacy is faulty history.

 

[Mickey]

Eden:

Vilifying indulgences to boost Martin Luther’s legitimacy is faulty history.

:yup:

 

[TertiumQuid]

[/quote]

Hey Mick-

Just a few questions for you.

1. Exactly where would I look in the Bible if I wanted to learn about indulgences?
2. I’ve heard that there is such a thing as eastern orthodox churches. What is there view on idulgences? Did they teach and practice indulgences previous to splitting with Rome? If no, why not? Are they then in error? If yes, are they the same as Rome?
3. Ever heard of those ancient churches in India? A good Roman Catholic friend told me that they have ancient practices similar to Rome. Do they have a doctrine on indulgences?

These aren’t trick questions. I was just wondering if you would like to contribute to this discussion.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

1. “St. Paul himself issued an indulgence by lessening the temporal penance for sin of a straying brother (2 Cor 2:6-11), which he had previously imposed on him (1 Cor 5:3-5). The Catholic Church adds no more in essence to the practices and theological presuppositions of these two passages.”

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ300.HTM

cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm

catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=4186

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/article9.html

staycatholic.com/indulgences.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

1. Good to see you looking into a faith* with* Apostolic Succession. As you know, the Eastern Orthodox are in schism. They don’t admit that they ever believed in the Primacy of Rome. So, why would they say that they believe the Pope has the power to issue indulgences?

Is it true that the Greek Orthodox Church believes in infallibility, but not in the Catholic sense?

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held before the Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome. They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or non-existent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome. This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said** “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I]. The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”** :clapping:

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm

Pope Benedict XVI is working to heal the schism and make the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox one again:

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_re_eu/pope_orthodox_1

The Orthodox are moving in that direction as well:

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=4297

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm#n7

Since you mentioned the Eastern Orthodox, have you ever read what they believe about Protestantism? There’s a sobering read for a Calvinist!

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm

1. “Those ancient churches in India” is a rather cryptic description. Are you referring to Hinduism?

“At other times, the Protestant scorn for penance appears, and doubt is thrown by the writer upon the whole concept of prayaschitta. Occasionally one will find Hindu priests or gurus disparagingly cast as akin to Catholic priests, somehow ordained to “forgive” sins, when they serve no such function.”

hinduismtoday.com/archives/2000/7-8/2000-7-10.shtml

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

Hey Mick-

Just a few questions for you.

1. Exactly where would I look in the Bible if I wanted to learn about indulgences?
2. I’ve heard that there is such a thing as eastern orthodox churches. What is there view on idulgences? Did they teach and practice indulgences previous to splitting with Rome? If no, why not? Are they then in error? If yes, are they the same as Rome?
3. Ever heard of those ancient churches in India? A good Roman Catholic friend told me that they have ancient practices similar to Rome. Do they have a doctrine on indulgences?

Hey Jim,

These would make three excellent subjects for separate threads.

But Eden responded to them adequately as usual.

Thanks Eden!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

Hey Jim,

These would make three excellent subjects for separate threads.

But Eden responded to them adequately as usual.

Thanks Eden!

Hi Mickey,

Thanks.

I didn’t find the answers given adequate at all. I was hopeful for others who may have some interest and knowledge in these areas to join in the discussion. Perhaps even you.

In regard to the “responses”-

Session 25 of the Council of Trent refers to how the church supposedly issued indulgences “even in the most ancient times”. Yet, Catholic apologists will also make vague references to how the concept developed over time. Do the previous Bible verses cited from 1 Cor. and 2nd Cor. have an infallible interpretation? Why do these verses teach indulgences? simply because Catholic apologists say so? Why aren’t these passages teaching simple examples of church discipline? Why do they serve as the basis for the complex extra-Biblical doctrine of the indulgence?

The second question wasn’t even touched meaningfully, as it is the indulgence *itself * that is the issue, not whether or not the Greek churches adhere to the papacy. The Greek church is likewise an ancient church. Why (or why not) do they not likewise have “indulgences”?

Likewise, the third question deals with the ancient Christian church in India, and no “response” was given.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[adnauseum]

TertiumQuid:

I didn’t find the answers given adequate at all.

Perhaps you could ask your questions with more clarity.

Long, disjunctive, rambling questions are the opposite of clear. Answers may be complex, but questions worthy of an answer should be clear and distinct.

Eden did reply to what I considered the point of your “question.”

But because your “questions” are disjunctive, he can’t possibly guess what you consider the essential point of what you asked. For you to then come back and say “see, he didn’t answer the question” is disingenuous.

Is it just a matter that protestant apologists seem to perform better in debates where there is as little clarity and precision as possible?

 

[Eden]

I think that TertiumQuid’s questions are intended to be a smoke and mirrors response to my statement (way back).

Eden:

I see that you are unwilling to make the distinction between indulgences and the abuse of indulgences.

The distinction that I pointed out between indulgences and the abuse of indulgences has still not been directly answered.

Instead we’ve been moved (without a direct response to my statement above) into a circuitous attempt to discredit the use of indulgences as a whole.

I see we are victims of the Protestant apologist technique of “if you don’t have an answer be vague and throw out as many options as possible and see if anything sticks”.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi adnauseum,

adnauseum:

Perhaps you could ask your questions with more clarity.Long, disjunctive, rambling questions are the opposite of clear. Answers may be complex, but questions worthy of an answer should be clear and distinct.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful exhortation.

adnauseum:

Eden did reply to what I considered the point of your “question.”

Thank you for voicing your opinion as well.

adnauseum:

But because your “questions” are disjunctive, he can’t possibly guess what you consider the essential point of what you asked. For you to then come back and say “see, he didn’t answer the question” is disingenuous.

I will try harder next time to avoid “disjuctives” and thank you for kindly exhorting me to rise above the level of “disingenuous-ness”.

adnauseum:

Is it just a matter that protestant apologists seem to perform better in debates where there is as little clarity and precision as possible?

I don’t know.

Have a nice day,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello Eden,

Eden:

I think that TertiumQuid’s questions are intended to be a smoke and mirrors response to my statement (way back).

Thank you for an interesting description of my motives.

Eden:

The distinction that I pointed out between indulgences and the abuse of indulgences has still not been directly answered.

I recall posting comments directly to this distinction. I’m not a very big fan of saying (or writing) the same things over again. Perhaps, if you have some free time, you could look over my comments. I recall noting this distinction within your church, though- I am a Protestant, so I deny that the distinction is between a good and a bad thing.

Eden:

Instead we’ve been moved (without a direct response to my statement above) into a circuitous attempt to discredit the use of indulgences as a whole.

Indeed, there were earlier comments in which I noted the development of indulgences. Since I’m not sure if you’re computer is able to access the earlier parts of this discussion, here is what I said:

“…the corruption of the practice of indulgences was far more complicated. The practice over time developed, or should I say, became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.”

Now Eden, could you please explain how this did not address the distinction made by your church? Perhaps then we can move on.

Eden:

I see we are victims of the Protestant apologist technique of “if you don’t have an answer be vague and throw out as many options as possible and see if anything sticks”.

Hmm- I’m not really looking for any “victims”. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

Have a nice day,
James Swan

 

[adnauseum]

The fact is Eden answered you very well.

 

[Eden]

Hmm- I’m not really looking for any “victims”. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

Not at all. You are James Swan aka TertiumQuid who is listed on Dave Armstrong’s page of Anti-Catholics:

Anti-Catholicism

A collection of my debates with Anti-Catholics, and other related materials

Dave Armstrong

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ANTICATH.JPG

TABLE OF CONTENTS (edited down to fit CA forums)

[Brian Schwertley](ic.net Schwertley)
[Matt Slick](ic.net Slick (Presbyterian apologist))
Josh Strodtbeck
[Dr. Eric Svendsen](ic.net. Eric Svendsen (apologist))
[James Swan](ic.net Swan (Reformed)) http://bestsmileys.com/waving/2.gif
[Frank Turk (aka “Centuri0n”)](ic.net Turk (aka Centuri0n))
[Jason Vanezia](http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ450.HTM#Jason Vanezia)
[Andrew Webb](ic.net Webb)
[William Webster](ic.net Webster (apologist))
[“Dr.” (?) James White](ic.net. James White (Reformed Baptist apologist))

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Not at all. You are James Swan aka TertiumQuid who is listed on Dave Armstrong’s page of Anti-Catholics:

From Dave Armstrong:

"I respect James Swan for actually making some real arguments for a change, and doing some solid research and work, rather than simply accusing. I have links to his papers on Luther on my website. I enjoyed these exchanges very much, and James and I have had very cordial private correspondence. He even apologized for remarks made at my expense behind my back, in a forum where I was banned and couldn’t even read what was being written about me. This is normal Christian behavior and discourse. "

“This is all I ask: that if a person disagrees with my Luther research, to show me why, and to engage in normal, congenial, non-insulting, substantive discussion about it, without the stupid, false charges which poison the well from the outset (in other words, rudimentary Christian ethics and normal intellectual discourse). James Swan did that, and I will remain eternally grateful to him for doing so.”

Source: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ485.HTM

If you scroll down this link to “External links”:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ387.HTM

You wil note Armstrong links to two of my papers:

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part I (“hostile” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)
The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part II (more “favorable” or “fair” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)

While Dave Armstrong and I have had some “heated” exchanges, I hold no animosity towards him simply because he’s Catholic or “anti-protestant”.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

The practice over time developed, or should I say, became corrupted.

It seems you have already made up your mind–I will not attempt to change it. All I can tell you is that the Byzantine Catholic Church accepts Catholic doctrine. (but you’ll find some interesting debates in the Orthodox section).

Apologetics is often fueled by ego and pride–each side attempting to “prove” the other wrong. When we pass from this world, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will reveal the truth to all believers. It’s not about debating people that don’t believe as we do through our pride and ego–It’s all about love! Love of God, and love of neighbor. But of course you already know this James.

May the love and peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you always!

Mickey

 

[kaycee]

Eden:

Not at all. You are James Swan aka TertiumQuid who is listed on Dave Armstrong’s page of Anti-Catholics:

Anti-Catholicism

Gotta love the mandatory poisoning of the well before any “reasoned” argument.

Is this kinda like the SAT’s where you automatically get 200 points for signing your name?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Mickey-

Mickey:

It seems you have already made up your mind–I will not attempt to change it.

An insightful observation. Indeed, I never expect anyone to *change their mind * by anything I write. I know we all have pre-commitments to our own theology. If someone did change their mind of course, that would be wonderful- but I don’t expect it at all.

I am primarily a researcher. The only way my mind would change on a subject is if “the facts” didn’t fit into my presuppositions. I would be forced to note an anomaly-something my worldview doesn’t account for, which would force me to re-evaluate my pre-commitments.

Now, on the subject of indulgences, my pre-commitments have an understanding of their worth and their truth: I deny their worth and truth, that is. Someone would first have to dialog with me about pennance and what exactly the sacrifice of Christ means- someone would have to deal with my presupositions first. This discussion is not really about my worldview, so there really won’t be any change in my perspective.

Mickey:

Apologetics is often fueled by ego and pride–each side attempting to “prove” the other wrong.

Most of the time, the discussions i’m in have more to do with me learning exactly what the “other side” believes, as well as finding out if what I believe is accurate. My interest is in the Reformation. The only way I can be challenged to examine my beliefs is by engaging those who disagree with me.Of course, we all have tempers and feelings.It’s not always easy to be charitable. It requires continual work.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

The only posts that I have seen by TertiumQuid are promotions of his Luther research:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

CONDUCT RULES
**6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. **

1. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

The only posts that I have seen by TertiumQuid are promotions of his Luther research

Hi Eden,

My primary interest is the Reformation. I usually only enter into discussions I know something about, or wish to learn more about. Thus I don’t consider my interaction here as " vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda." I’ve been involved in discussions here about various Reformation issues- the canon of Scripture, indulgences, etc.

On the other hand, one of the rules of these forums says:

"Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks."

We could have much more interesting discussions is you could abide by this rule when responding to me.

Regards,
James Swan