The Church of Jesus Christ was never in apostacy?

[peary]

Originally Posted by **Hisalone **
To claim that the pope was ingnorant of the sali of indulgences and of Tetzel is pure folly. Catholics lose all credibility when making such claims.

**Regardless, the Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The *Catholic Encyclopedia *states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” ***

 

[justasking4]

What if he wasn’t ignorant of it? Again, that doesn’t negate the divinity of the Catholic Church. There were a number of scoundrel popes. Fortunately, they never erred when defining dogma. By the protection of the Holy Spirit, these bad popes never taught error in matters of faith and morals. There always has been and always will be sinners in Christ’s Church. I suspect Christ new this when he founded it upon St. Peter.

If Christ founded the church on Peter then you are on some very shaking ground being that the foundation is built on a sinful fallible man and his successors. The foundation for the church is not Peter but Christ. See I Corinthians 3:11. The apostles are also part of this foundation and not just Peter… .See Ephesians 2:20

Secondly, if the church is divine (whatever that means) must it be pure?

 

[peary]

If Christ founded the church on Peter then you are on some very shaking ground being that the foundation is built on a sinful fallible man and his successors. The foundation for the church is not Peter but Christ. See I Corinthians 3:11. The apostles are also part of this foundation and not just Peter… .See Ephesians 2:20

Secondly, if the church is divine (whatever that means) must it be pure?

The only ‘Divine’ part of the Church (if you can actually refer to it in that manner but I think one is treading on soft ground here) is the Church Triumphant in Heaven which consists of all the saints and angels around the throne of God. The Church Suffering (those who are experiencing purgation) and the Church Militant (those on earth) are more ‘earthly’ and cannot be considered ‘divine’. What protects the Church from error in Faith and morals is the Holy Spirit.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **justasking4 **
If Christ founded the church on Peter then you are on some very shaking ground being that the foundation is built on a sinful fallible man and his successors. The foundation for the church is not Peter but Christ. See I Corinthians 3:11. The apostles are also part of this foundation and not just Peter… .See Ephesians 2:20

**Paul says that the pillar of Truth IS THE CHURCH.
Also, you conveniently forget that Judas was part of the 12 apostles of the Lord, and that, though as sinful as he was, was given the powers to baptize, to forgive sins, and to heal. Yes, the Church is built on sinful, fallible men (and women). Yet, its foundation is Christ.

You need to go back to the Old Testament and study the Davidic Kingdom to understand the role of the King’s prime minister. There you will find your answer.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have read all the posts, the ones that try to qualify an apostacy does not prove any apostacy Catholic church. All that is proven is that weeds grow along the good seeded crop.

If your definition of Apostacy is when Peter denied Jesus 3 times. This is an inaccurate account of apostacy, because Jesus still lives. If your definition of an apostacy church of Jesus because all his disciples were scattered but one, again proves their was no apostacy.God always saves a remnant for himself.

The above examples is all that is repeated here, there is no apostacy Catholic church, only those members that have apostacised themselves from the body of Jesus Christ.

Selling of indulgences, only proves we had another Judas, the Faith of the Catholic church never apostacised. Besides this Judas act did not occur until the 15th century. Those that make the claim of an apostate Catholic church dates it to the early 2nd century Apostle Catholic church.

Again here,in the 2nd century during the persecution of the Catholilc church,there were apostate Bishops but the Popes and saints went to their deaths before given in or forced to apostacy.

What I would like to make known here for those who take to this LIE about an apostate Catholic church. Your founders of this LIE may have come across the Catholic church’s letters, writings, and documents from both civil and Majesterial writings, that are in her possesion of , excommunicating these apostate Catholic Bishops from the 2nd century, and indicating Apostacy has occurred in the Catholilc church. If this is the grounds your Manly or womenaly founder is basing it on.

It is the same arguments that are placed here about indulgences falsely prove an apostate Catholic church. But the Catholic church Never went into apostacy. Any one who is not Catholic please, research your founders faith, and search the truth out, and Truth will find you. Dont follow the religions of Men, and or women who lay claim to the founding Christian Church, Their is only one Church Jesus left here. IF you believe Jesus the Son of God’s Church went into apostacy, then you are calling Jesus a liar, because he promised by his word he will never leave her orphans, and will always be with her.

Still waiting for a valid apostacy Catholic church in history, any Mormons,or SDA want to prove your false teaching here. If you cant prove an apostacy Catholic church, then stop teaching this LIE to our youth, you are assisting the father of lies.

OR you need to investigate those who are lying to you about the Church of Jesus Christ he founded, not your human founders of Men and women.

 

[Harpazo]

To claim that the pope was ingnorant of the sali of indulgences and of Tetzel is pure folly. Catholics lose all credibility when making such claims.

Who said he was ignorant of it? Not I.

Please, brother, answer the question already and stop dodging it. Which Pope of Rome mandated the sale of Indulgences? Who and what year?

This argument is beginning to be akin to a dog chasing it’s tail, it’s going nowhere. The burden of proof is on you. Show me where a Pope of Rome mandated the sale of Indulgences.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Hisalone]

A Papal bull is a particular type of letters patent or charter issued by a pope. It is named after the bulla that was appended to the end to authenticate it.

Papal bulls were originally issued by the pope for many kinds of communication of a public nature, but after the fifteenth century, only for the most formal or solemn of occasions. Modern scholars have retroactively used the term “Bull” to describe any elaborate papal document issued in the form of a decree or privilege (solemn or simple), and to some less elaborate ones issued in the form of a letter. Popularly, the name is used for any papal document that contains a metal seal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull

 

[Hisalone]

Fresh scope was given to his activity in 1517 by archbishop Albrecht of Mainz. Albrecht had been elected at the age of twenty-four to a see already impoverished by frequent successions and payments of annates to Rome. He had agreed with Pope Leo X. to pay his first-fruits in cash, on condition that he were allowed to recoup himself by the sale of indulgences. Half the proceeds in his province were to go to him, half to Leo X. for building the basilica of St Peter’s at Rome. Tetzel was selected as the most efficient salesman; he was appointed general sub-commissioner for indulgences, and was accompanied by a clerk of the Fuggers from whom Albrecht had borrowed the money to pay his first-fruits. Tetzel’s efforts irretrievably damaged the complicated and abstruse Catholic doctrine on the subject of indulgences; as soon as the coin clinks in the chest, he cried, the soul is freed from purgatory. In June he was at Magdeburg, Halle and Naumburg; the elector of Saxony excluded him from his dominions, but Albrecht’s brother, the elector Joachim of Brandenburg, encouraged him at Berlin in the hope of sharing the spoils, and by the connivance of Duke George of Saxony he was permitted to pursue his operations within a few miles of the electoral territory at Wittenberg. Luther was thus roused to publish his momentous ninety-five theses on the subject of indulgences on October 31, 1517 (see Luther) .

1911encyclopedia.org/Johann_Tetzel

 

[Hisalone]

The rebuilding of St. Peter’s Church in Rome furnished an occasion for the periodical exercise of the papal power of granting indulgences. Julius II. and Leo X., two of the most worldly, avaricious, and extravagant Popes, had no scruple to raise funds for that object, and incidentally for

their own aggrandizement, from the traffic in indulgences.** Both issued several bulls to that effect. **
acts1711.com/tetzel.htm

 

[Hisalone]

No Gabriel the selling of indulgences is apostate.
To teach, to play on the fears of believers, to practice the selling of indulgences to free loved ones from an imaginary place called purgatory is a direct conflict to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[peary]

No Gabriel the selling of indulgences is apostate.
To teach, to play on the fears of believers, to practice the selling of indulgences to free loved ones from an imaginary place called purgatory is a direct conflict to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

**Indulgences were never sold. Or didn’t you read my last post # 81 explaining this? To refresh the memory -

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The *Catholic Encyclopedia *states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” ***

 

[Hisalone]

**Indulgences were never sold. Or didn’t you read my last post # 81 explaining this? To refresh the memory -

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The *Catholic Encyclopedia ***states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” *

This is total bunk.
The earth is not flat , the sky is blue.

 

[Hisalone]

Johann Tetzel
Born: c. 1460
Birthplace: Pirna, Saxony, Germany
Died: 4-Jul-1519
Location of death: Leipzig, Germany
Cause of death: unspecified

Gender: Male
Religion: Roman Catholic
Race or Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Religion

Nationality: Germany
Executive summary: Seller of indulgences

Preacher and salesman of papal indulgences,

nndb.com/people/102/000098805/

 

[Hisalone]

Johann Tetzel
Johann Tetzel was a German Dominican friar remembered for selling indulgences using the catchy line, “As soon a coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” Tetzel even went as far as creating a chart that listed a price for each type of sin and claiming that the indulgences he sold could save a soul who violated the Virgin Mary. (1465 – August 11, 1519).

123exp-biographies.com/t/00034060080/

 

[Hisalone]

The following is taken from The History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (by J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, D.D., Hartland Institute, PO Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733, paperback, ISBN # 0-923309-14-4, 876 pages) unless otherwise noted.

page 86
A Jesuit historian, speaking of the Dominican monks whom Tetzel had taken with him, says: “Some of these preachers failed not, as usual, to go behond the matter they were treating of, and so far to exaggerate the worth of indulgences, that they gave the people cause to believe that they were assured of their salvation, and of deliverance of souls from purgatory, so soon as they had given their money.”

page 15
… that system of barter celebrated under the title of Indulgences. They said to their penitents: “You cannot accomplish the tasks imposed on you. Well ! we, the priests of God and your pastors, will take this heavy burden upon ourselves. For a seven weeks’ fast,” said Regino, abbot of Prum, "you shall pay twenty pence, if you are rich; ten, if less wealthy; and three pence if you are poor; and so on for other matters. [Libri duo de Ecclesasticis Disciplinia]

page 16
Incest, if not detected, was to cost five groats; and six, if it was known. There was a stated price for murder, infanticide, adultery, perjury, burglary, &c. “O disgrace of Rome!”

page 87
“As for those,” said they, “who wish to deliver souls from purgatory and procure the pardon of all their offences, let them put money into the chest; contrition of heart or confession of mouth is not necessary. Let them only hasten to bring their money; for thus will they perform a work most useful to the souls of the dead, and to the building of the Church of St. Peter.” Greater blessings could not be offered at a lower rate … Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, were, according to scale, to pay twenty-five ducats for an ordinary indulgence. Abbots, counts, and barons, ten. The other nobles, the rectors, and all those who possessed an income of five hundred florins, paid six. Those who had two hundred florins a year paid one; and others, only a half. Moreover, if this tarriff could not be carried out to the letter, full powers were given the apostolical commissionary; and all was to be arranged according to the data of “sound reason,” and the generosity of the donor. For particular sins, Tetzel and a particular tax. For polygamy it was six ducats; for sacrilege and perjury, nine ducats; for murder, eight ducats; for witchcraft, two ducats.

…It frequently happened, both in towns and villages, that the men were opposed to this traffic, and forbade their wives to give anything to these merchants. What could their pious spouses do? “Have you not your dowry, or other property, at your own disposal?” asked the vendors. “In that case you can dispose of it for so holy a work, against the will of your husbands.”

page 89
At Magdeburg, Tetzel refused to absolve a rich lady, unless (as he declared to her) she would pay one hundred florins in advance. She requested the advice of her usual confessor, who was a Franciscan: “God grants the remission of sins gratuitously,” replied the monk, “[H]e does not sell it.” He begged her, however, not to communicate to Tetzel the counsel she had received from him. But this merchant having notwithstanding heard a report of this opinion so contrary to his interests, exclaimed: “Such a counsellor deserves to be banished or to be burnt.”

lovetolearnplace.com/SpecialDays/Reformation/Indulgences.html

 

[Tonks40]

From New Advent.org:

For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).

The methods Tetzel used at the time in order to raise money for the Church can be seen as unscrupulous and done without much theological forethought, no doubt. But to infer that this method was dogmatically supported by the Church goes to prove that those who insist on this feel that the Council of Trent have no bearing on what the Church actually teaches (and has always taught) in regards to indulgences. :banghead:

 

[Harpazo]

Johann Tetzel
Johann Tetzel was a German Dominican friar remembered for selling indulgences using the catchy line, “As soon a coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” Tetzel even went as far as creating a chart that listed a price for each type of sin and claiming that the indulgences he sold could save a soul who violated the Virgin Mary. (1465 – August 11, 1519).

123exp-biographies.com/t/00034060080/

Let me ask you, Hisalone, do you hold modern-day Southerners in the US guilty of committing crimes against Blacks? Are all Southerners racists?

Or are all Germans guilty of Hitler’s atrocities? When Germans are born today, do they inherit the guilt and are they born anti-Semitic?

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

 

[justinthemartyr]

The Catholic Church was never in total apostacy. Certain members or groups within the church have apostacized, but not the whole, ever.

Every single church/organization with human beings in it has apostacized at one time or another.

The church herself has never been in total apostacy.
there is a big difference.

 

[Hisalone]

Let me ask you, Hisalone, do you hold modern-day Southerners in the US guilty of committing crimes against Blacks? Are all Southerners racists?

Or are all Germans guilty of Hitler’s atrocities? When Germans are born today, do they inherit the guilt and are they born anti-Semitic?

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

Catholics will hold the view that Tetzel was a “loose cannon” and that their church should not be judged by the actions of this individual.
But is that the case?
Did Tetzel have the backing of the Pope?
Did he have the backing of the bishops whose dioceases which he visited?
Why did the Catholic Church allow this practice to arise to such a point that it became as much an issue as any other in its ultimate breakup?

I have come to the conclusion that the pope not only knew aboutthe selling of indulgences but in fact santioned it.
The bishops wo allowed this “wolf” to pry on their sheep did so with full culpability.
Rome allowed this practice to continue to the point of that the Reformation can be placed fully on their doorstep.

 

[Harpazo]

Catholics will hold the view that Tetzel was a “loose cannon” and that their church should not be judged by the actions of this individual.
But is that the case?
Did Tetzel have the backing of the Pope?
Did he have the backing of the bishops whose dioceases which he visited?
Why did the Catholic Church allow this practice to arise to such a point that it became as much an issue as any other in its ultimate breakup?

I have come to the conclusion that the pope not only knew aboutthe selling of indulgences but in fact santioned it.
The bishops wo allowed this “wolf” to pry on their sheep did so with full culpability.
Rome allowed this practice to continue to the point of that the Reformation can be placed fully on their doorstep.

Why can’t you answer any of my questions and be honest?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew