Split: Sale of Indulgences makes the Pope fallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Insignificant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Insignificant

Guest
ok Catholic dude, I understand the difference between the Pope being able to sin, and being able to teach false doctrine. But I would say historically the Pope’s of old did both, for example the indulgences that used to be sold. May be I have only gotten this side of history because i am a stuffy old Protestant, converted from catholicism, but I am working on getting a more well rounded grasp on Chruch history. I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
 
Insignificant said:
ok Catholic dude, I understand the difference between the Pope being able to sin, and being able to teach false doctrine. But I would say historically the Pope’s of old did both, for example the indulgences that used to be sold. May be I have only gotten this side of history because i am a stuffy old Protestant, converted from catholicism, but I am working on getting a more well rounded grasp on Chruch history. I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Start a new thread on this topic.
 
Insignificant said:
ok Catholic dude, I understand the difference between the Pope being able to sin, and being able to teach false doctrine. But I would say historically the Pope’s of old did both, for example the indulgences that used to be sold. May be I have only gotten this side of history because i am a stuffy old Protestant, converted from catholicism, but I am working on getting a more well rounded grasp on Chruch history. I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Which heretical doctrine did the Pope teach at the time of the Reformation? You need to be more specific, please.
 
My friend you must be more specific. As a High Schooler I have limited time to debate, so I can’t really address this if you don’t delve deeper into the mystery.
 
Hi Insignificant,

What the pope does and what the pope says, while teaching authoritatively, is different. The pope can make mistakes. If he sold indulgences, it was wrong. But that does not say that he taught that it was all right.

As it turns out, the Pope did not sell indulgences. I have this on the authority of Martin Luther himself. Here are some excerpts from the celebrated 95 theses which he posted :
  1. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
  1. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
  1. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
  2. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
Click to expand...
You can find the 95 theses at this address :
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Verbum

PS No child of God is insignificant. I would love you to consider changing that name.
 
Insignificant said:
I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand what infallable means. Popes have spoken ex-cathedra less than a handful of times if I am correct. That is the only time a Pope is infallable. A Pope is human and therefore can err, and that may have happened quite often with some, but when they speak ex-cathedra, from the chair of Peter, they are speaking infallabe, a truth that is to be believed by all Catholics and all Christians since the Pope is the Pastor of ALL Christians, whether they accept it or not.

newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
 
Insignificant said:
ok Catholic dude, I understand the difference between the Pope being able to sin, and being able to teach false doctrine. But I would say historically the Pope’s of old did both, for example the indulgences that used to be sold. May be I have only gotten this side of history because i am a stuffy old Protestant, converted from catholicism, but I am working on getting a more well rounded grasp on Chruch history. I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Hi there Insig - and wecome to the forums.

The Catholic Church defines the instances when the Pope is infallable. The doctrine was defined in 1870 by a council, at the behest of Pope Pius IX.

Councils are also considered infallable, and have been since Apostolic times.

A third source of infallability is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This occurs when the overwhelming population of Church members believe the same thing.

The Dogmas of Mary are just such an example. Most certainly, the earliest Christian had no such belief, but just as certainly venerated her as Mother of God. The belief that she remained a virgin and was conceived without sin gradually became a part of the faith. The virginity of our Blessed Lady was defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649. In 1854 Pope Pius IX declared Mary to be conceived without sin.

All infallability is believed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.

Tell me something, please. When any non-Catholic preacher speaks, and speaks with absolute conviction to his or her own truth, is that person speaking infallibly?

Subrosa
 
Insignificant said:
ok Catholic dude, I understand the difference between the Pope being able to sin, and being able to teach false doctrine. But I would say historically the Pope’s of old did both, for example the indulgences that used to be sold. May be I have only gotten this side of history because i am a stuffy old Protestant, converted from catholicism, but I am working on getting a more well rounded grasp on Chruch history. I just don’t understand how the doctrine that the Pope cannot teach heretical doctrine, but yet that is exactly what he did at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Indulgences were not “sold” by the Pope. During the time of the reformation, some clergy abused the system of granting indulgences. Do you know what an indulgence is and how they are obtained? Even a brief look at history and you will see that the Pope did not sell indulgences.

Here is a site that debunks some of the myths of indulgences. Here is another site that talks about what indulgences are and a brief write up on Luther’s actions.
 
In the radio debate Jimmy Akin had against Dr. James White, White said that the RCC had sold indulgences and Akin said, “for about 200 hundred years”. Has Akin ever recanted or is he sticking to what he said?
 
nasb said:
In the radio debate Jimmy Akin had against Dr. James White, White said that the RCC had sold indulgences and Akin said, “for about 200 hundred years”. Has Akin ever recanted or is he sticking to what he said?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you misunderstood the debate or Jimmy Akin misunderstood what James White said. I’m not sure what happened there, perhaps there is a context issue. Jimmy’s blog says this in 11/06

“The Church has never sold indulgences. That’s a myth. What did happen for a time is one of the good things you can do – most indulgences are like going on a pilgrimage, saying a prayer, or reading the bible or something like that, because those are all good things to do. It’s a good thing to go on pilgrimages or say prayers or read the bible. Well, you know what also is good to do? Donate to charitable causes such as the care of the poor or the Church building fund or things like that. And so back in Martin Luther’s time, it was allowed to have indulgences granted not only for prayers and pilgrimages and things like that, but also for charitable contributions because those were also good things the Church wanted to encourage. Eventually, though – and this was hundreds of years ago – the Church eliminated that practice and that no longer exists today.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top