The Proof that the Catholic Church did Not Sell Indulgences

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a tripartite agreement between Pope Leo, the Fugger Banking Corporation and the Archbishop of Mainz to raise money from indulgences. The monk Tetzel had an aggressive marketing patter.

It may not have been sale in the purest sense, but money was definitely an objective.
 
I love, Fr. Mike Schmitz, well maybe like a whole lot, love is too strong a word… but Ascension Presents is the best.

But I think he sugar coated this one, a little. A lot of historians said they sold indulgences… its in the history books. Catholic said that rich people did try to buy passages out of purgatory for family members, but when the church realized it they stopped that practice. A long time after Lutheran pointed it out to them… but it was happening… and they put a stop too it. I learned that in my RCIA class.
 
Last edited:
That’s weird because we actually have some of the indulgences sold during that era. Note the coin slot in the indulgence chest.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
There were priests who sold indulgences. I don’t think anybody is denying that. The OP’s argument, as I understand it, is that those priests were acting dishonestly and without the due approval of the hierarchy, therefore it is untrue to say that “The Church sold indulgences.”
 
Well, if they said it in your RCIA class, it must be true :).
 
Last edited:
Bad typing, bad joke. I fixed it, but your not missing anything of consequence by not understanding my post.
 
The Catholic Church may not have sold indulgences, but some of her people certainly did for well intentioned purposes or not. It is the same today…the RCC doesnt molest children but there are those who claim to be part of the church that do. Regardless, it reflects badly on the RCC
 
Hodos said:
That’s weird because we actually have copies of the indulgences sold during that era. Note the coin slot in the indulgence chest
Click to expand...
Nobody disputes that money was given when indulgences were issued. But was it an actual sale as such? Money is also collected at Mass but we don’t call it a sale of Masses.
 
Money was exchanged for a note of indulgence. This was a quid pro quo exchange for the expressed purpose of obtaining indulgences. So yes. There was an indulgence sale.

When money is collected at Mass (I am assuming you are talking about the offeratory and not paying for a private mass or some other transaction) there is no quid pro quo involved. It is a charitable gift given by the person with no expectation of receiving something in exchange.
BartholomewB said:
There were priests who sold indulgences. I don’t think anybody is denying that. The OP’s argument, as I understand it, is that those priests were acting dishonestly and without the due approval of the hierarchy, therefore it is untrue to say that “The Church sold indulgences.”
Click to expand...
The sale was authorized by both the Archbishop of Mainz and the Bishop of Rome who were to divide the proceeds amongst them. When Martin Luther exposed what was being preached in the name of the Pope and the Archbishop, not only was Tetzel not disciplined or corrected, but Luther who exposed the doctrinal error and abusive practices was accused of heresy. Tetzel, Eck, Prierias, and Cajetan all explicitly stated that Luther was in doctrinal error to question a doctrine backed by Pope Leo X on the ground that anything the Bishop of Rome condones must be correct, without defending the doctrine or practice in question via scripture. I would say there is a whole lot more evidence that indicates that the indulgence sellers were operating with due approval of the hierarchy than to say they just went rogue.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
am assuming you are talking about the offeratory and not paying for a private mass or some other transaction
Click to expand...
Why assume that?

A private Mass with a fixed stipend could be considered a sale under this definition.
 
JohnR77 said:
Did the Catholic Church Sell Indulgences ? No
Click to expand...
Near the beginning of the Reformation, the Pope desired to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica. The Archbishop of Mainz, Germany needed to pay off his bishopric debt. So, they agreed to raise money to finance both by allowing indulgence salesmen, like Johann Tetsel, to sell indulgences, including plenary indulgences for dead loved ones in Purgatory & usher them straight to Heaven, once they gave money to buy an indulgence.
 
Last edited:
A few questions arise. What does this sinful behavior by three, five, or ten have to do with the oppression, torture and murder of Anabaptists by the Protestant reformers? What does it have to do with the imprisonment, torture and serial executions of Catholics under Queen Elizabeth I in England during the English Protestant “reformation”?

What?

Q: What does the sin of a troika or cabal of sinners have to do with revealed truth? With the deposit of faith? What does it have to do with the lives and works of the great Saints?

A: Nothing.

Let’s see how the “other side” is faring, shall we? Never mind the lurid details of the reformers’ personal lives. Consider prosperity preacher Robert Tilton - who has the dubious distinction of perhaps a greater audience watching a parody flatulence video about him than to his actual preaching. What about Benny Hinn, who is parodied in Star Wars fashion? The list of charlatans whose ministry seems always to take them to prostitute’s motel rooms at 1 AM? The list of charlatans and parodies cannot never be complete, as they are being turned out as we speak.

Oh, but that selling of indulgences 500 years ago by three men, five men, ten men(?) is just too terrible to forget. Never mind that those indulgences were actually granted by God - it was the sellers who answered for their sin and abuse of office.

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
There’s nothing wrong in principle with giving indulgences to the faithful for almsgiving or donating to the Church. Obviously when human beings are thrown into the mix we see there can be wide room for corruption.
 
Well, three or five or whatever number who sinned departed from Church teaching, yet the Church is tarred and feathered until the end of time. This used to manifest itself as racial stereotyping, but now falls upon the Church which Christ founded. How intellectually disingenuous and petty can those who hate the Church get?

Clearly, there is neither love nor forgiveness in some hypocrites who dare to call themselves “Christian”

The log and the splinter, my brother.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
How intellectually disingenuous and petty can those who hate the Church get?

Clearly, there is neither love nor forgiveness in some hypocrites who dare to call themselves “Christian”
Click to expand...
Some are non-Christian interlopers - of which “Interloping” has been around for 2,000 years
’
They’re doomed to fail
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top