No, I wouldn’t agree… Martin Luther was right about his initial complaint, which was HOW indulgences were being marketed… basically, some of the German bishops were incorrect in how they did this. But if you know anything about Germans, you know that once their back is up about something they add every little nit-picky thing even if they know they are just picking at things they essentially agree with but there is something about it that could be misconstrued by others.
Obviously! The doctrines of the Catholic Church never change, unlike Protestant religions.
Thanks for the post. But doctrinally, indulgences are still part of your Faith, correct? In addition, Priests and nuns are still not able to marry. Is my understanding correct on these two doctrinal issues? Would you also agree that the way of salvation is the same as it was taught 500 years ago?
That’s a good answer. So when you see ecumenical attempts between Roman Catholics and Protestants such as ECT 1 and ECT 2, would it be fair to say that only the Protestants are changing their doctrine, and not the Catholic Church?
Indulgences do still exist - that was not the original contention. It was the fact that some misguided people were selling them. That was never sanctioned, but it did need to be stopped (and was).
Yes indulgences are still practiced and they are doctrinally sound… ML did not disagree with indulgences as a concept, but that they were being marketed by bishops where they should not have been. As for priests and marriage… this is not a doctrine, it is a discipline which is allowed to change… the Eastern rite allows married priests but the Latin rite practices single celibate priesthood in most cases… they do allow minister converts from protestant faiths to be married priests. As another poster said… The Catholic Church has not changed doctrine but that doesn’t mean that in the past these doctrine were followed or understood correctly.
Hahaha… great minds think alike… we said almost the same thing at almost the same time!!!
As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs." Tetzel
What he was doing was/is/will always be wrong. The question of whether or not Pope Leo X approved it is immaterial, because the sale of indulgences was never a doctrinal practice within the Church. Even if he DID approve it (remember, hypothetically), he did so as an individual and certainly never made an infallible proclamation to the effect that they were allowed to be sold (because, by virtue of his office, he wouldn’t/couldn’t).
Celibacy is a mandatory discipline (one highly recommended by St. Paul), and no, it is not optional in the Roman rite - but again, no one is surprised by this on the day they take their vows. And I was actually referring to Eastern Catholics - remember, we do not just have the Roman rite, there are the Byzantine, Maronite, etc. rites, all under the authority of the Pope. But no priest, once ordained, can marry. I said that some married men were admitted to the priesthood. It’s an important difference!
I would say this is a startling difference:
This is just what came to my mind when I read the question “What changed in 500 years?”
My understanding is the Tetzel more or less had the Pope on his side.
I believe that a nun is celibate by definition (just as a monk is celibate by definition).
Do you have a reference for that being an open question? The idea of indulgences was in place long before the times of the Reformation, and I can hardly believe any orthodox theologians promoting their sale as a “what if?”
Again, the Pope’s alleged support is immaterial (although we can discuss it if you’d like!). Pope’s have the charism of infallibility when defining issues of faith and morals for the universal Church - they do not have the charism of impeccability.
To answer your own question…you have but to look around you or surf the net and ask “which Protestant denomination’s theology contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, and sit back and watch the firestorm… Much has changed in the last 500 years where Protestants are concerned. How many different denominations are there? How many agree on anything?
My friend, what I am about to say is said with all possible love and charity… sincerely so… I believe that 21st Century Protestants are for the most part almost completely naive and ignorant about who and what the Reformers were, and why they did what they did. They are also equally naive and ignorant as to the essential beliefs of the Reformers…on many levels. I will say here, that the true exceptions to my statement are the majority of Lutherans…who do know.
The Reformed Protestants fragmented in a multitude of exclusionary beliefs even in the reformers lifetimes. So five centuries later they would probably be barely recognizable by their founders. Would Luther agree with the Lutheran church on ordination of women and on the blessing of homosexual unions? Would Zwingli agree with Baptists on the baptism of infants?
The “open question” I was referring to has to do with how indulgences are applied to the souls in purgatory. That’s why I said “Nowadays we know that the Pope can’t just decide to free all the souls in purgatory (a question that Martin Luther brought up, btw).”
I don’t know what you are responding to. As far as I can recall, no one but you has mentioned “impeccability”. (Although, since you brought it up, certainly I agree with you that the Pope is not impeccable.)
I was responding to your line “My understanding is the Tetzel more or less had the Pope on his side.” I know you didn’t mean it this way, but many Protestants think that a Pope’s private approval of something that turns out to be wrong means that Infallibility has to be wrong as well. Sorry if there was any confusion, but I think it’s an important distinction.
Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences be blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).