"Who was Thomas Cranmer?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I’ll be the last man on earth to support televangelists! But honestly, pointing out the bad behavior of others doesn’t excuse our own. The Catholic Church abused indulgences like crazy in the Middle Ages and Luther called them on it. And it wasn’t just the guilt trips and $$$ that they sucked out of the peasantry that made Luther and other Reformers rail at the practice but the fact that they were not Biblical, they cause the Christian to believe that they’re only half-forgiven (eternal consequences but not temporal ones), they didn’t exist in the Early Church or in Orthodoxy, were innovative, and spiritually cause a lack of piety. The Church hasn’t used them financially in recent centuries, no. But they still use them spiritually and Protestants/Orthodox believe them to be dishonest, unbiblical, and by no means a part of the deposit of faith. It’s not just the revenue-raising, it’s the principles and corrupt notions behind them that people find repugnant.
Jimmy_B said:
This is a little off-topic but aren’t all Television Evangelical preachers who say, “send us your prayer money and all of your problems will be solved” or “you will be healed”; aren’t they involved in a modern form of indulgence abuse? What is the last case of indulgence abuse, involving the Catholic Church that you are aware of? Don’t all denominations take money from their parishioners for church improvements? Let’s not forget that reform actually began in the Catholic Church before Luther.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Well I’ll be the last man on earth to support televangelists! But honestly, pointing out the bad behavior of others doesn’t excuse our own. The Catholic Church abused indulgences like crazy in the Middle Ages and Luther called them on it. And it wasn’t just the guilt trips and $$$ that they sucked out of the peasantry that made Luther and other Reformers rail at the practice but the fact that they were not Biblical, they cause the Christian to believe that they’re only half-forgiven (eternal consequences but not temporal ones), they didn’t exist in the Early Church or in Orthodoxy, were innovative, and spiritually cause a lack of piety. The Church hasn’t used them financially in recent centuries, no. But they still use them spiritually and Protestants/Orthodox believe them to be dishonest, unbiblical, and by no means a part of the deposit of faith. It’s not just the revenue-raising, it’s the principles and corrupt notions behind them that people find repugnant.
Click to expand...
You are exaggerating and mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, today and in the middle ages. You’re aslo bringing up issues that the Church correct hundreds of years ago.

Also, I believe that you’re confusing “improper” indulgence of the past and those practiced in the Church today, which apparently you do not understand. I will explain them in further posts here or on another thread.

How were and are Protestant Churches built? Is there some magical Protestant money tree, that I’m not aware of?

I don’t get your point here.

Finally, Catholic priests and nuns do not receive a salary, they take a vow of celibacy and poverty. How many Protestant preachers do this? So, where does that money come from for non-Catholic Christian ministers and preachers and who decides how much a minister should receive in pay? I guess that depends on the non-Catholic Christian denomination… right?

When Mother Theresa died, the only things that she owned were two dresses and one purse, no Cadillac, no Rolex, no big house…two dresses and one purse, that’s it.

Thank you for your post.
 
**Jimmy, I think you are the one who is confused here, my brother in Christ. You are confusing fundraising, which is not immoral, with the exchange of salvation for $$$, which I need not explain to you IS immoral. Do some reading about men like Tetzel and why Luther was disgusted with his sinful behavior. If you feel that fleecing the peasantry of what little money they had in order to build basilicas and fancy architecture, statues, and St. Peter’s, then that’s fine. I don’t. You say I’m “exaggerating.” I’d appreciate it if you’d point out exactly where I am exaggerating? Also, I am NOT confusing indulgences of the Medievel type with modern ones. I’m well aware that Trent cleaned up the $$ side of things (thanks to the Protestants calling them out on it!), but the notion, the idea, the theology behind indulgences continues today. I own a handbook of indulgences from the Catholic Church and actually used to believe in this stuff so I have a good grasp on it. **
Jimmy_B said:
You are exaggerating and mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, today and in the middle ages. You’re aslo bringing up issues that the Church correct hundreds of years ago.

Also, I believe that you’re confusing “improper” indulgence of the past and those practiced in the Church today, which apparently you do not understand. I will explain them in further posts here or on another thread.

Again, you’re confusing fundraising with $$$ for freeing people from the purgatorial/temporal consequences of their sins. Apples and oranges my brother. I’m not sure why you don’t get my point? I offer someone the ability to get time off their sentence in purgatory, play guilt trips on them, all in exchange for money and you don’t find that questionable? You don’t think that’s different from people tithing money in order to build a church, etc.? Fundraising vs. salvific bribery? Go and read what Tetzel and his crew were famous for saying: “the minute the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs…” Go look at the wood-carvings showing poor souls in purgatory suffering then being freed by family members for $$$. "The minute the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."
How were and are Protestant Churches built? Is there some magical Protestant money tree, that I’m not aware of?

I don’t get your point here.

What does this have to do with indulgences? In 2010 the Catholic Church doesn’t charge $$ for indulgences and in the Middle Ages the indulgence revenues under crooked popes like Leo X didn’t go toward salaries or standard of living for nuns/clergy. It went toward the building of St. Peter’s Basilica and his other pet projects. That is well-known. Again, you’re confusing fundraising, which when done openly and honestly is perfectly moral, with $$$ for salvation and pardon, which is evil.
Finally, Catholic priests and nuns do not receive a salary, they take a vow of celibacy and poverty. How many Protestant preachers do this? So, where does that money come from for non-Catholic Christian ministers and preachers and who decides how much a minister should receive in pay? I guess that depends on the non-Catholic Christian denomination… right?

True, but I fail to see what that has to do with the idea of the Church allowing people to be forgiven a portion or all of the temporal consequences of sins committed in exchange for penances or in ancient times, money?

When Mother Theresa died, the only things that she owned were two dresses and one purse, no Cadillac, no Rolex, no big house…two dresses and one purse, that’s it.
And you as well, Jimmy. Blessings.
Thank you for your post.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
**Jimmy, I think you are the one who is confused here, my brother in Christ. You are confusing fundraising, which is not immoral, with the exchange of salvation for $$$, which I need not explain to you IS immoral. Do some reading about men like Tetzel and why Luther was disgusted with his sinful behavior. If you feel that fleecing the peasantry of what little money they had in order to build basilicas and fancy architecture, statues, and St. Peter’s, then that’s fine. I don’t. You say I’m “exaggerating.” I’d appreciate it if you’d point out exactly where I am exaggerating? Also, I am NOT confusing indulgences of the Medievel type with modern ones. I’m well aware that Trent cleaned up the $$ side of things (thanks to the Protestants calling them out on it!), but the notion, the idea, the theology behind indulgences continues today. I own a handbook of indulgences from the Catholic Church and actually used to believe in this stuff so I have a good grasp on it. **
Click to expand...
This sounds like a topic for another thread.

Blessings to you too.
 
40.png
Jimmy_B:
And Scarisbrick is RC.

GKC
 
Nine_Two said:
Funny that Bloody Mary comes up. Mary ordered the death, for heresy, of less people than Elizabeth. It was close to be sure, and though Mary’s reign was shorter, Elizabeth didn’t get started burning until a fair bit into her reign.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth didn’t burn–she hanged, drew (drawed?) and quartered. Barbaric, but not like burning. E’s “persecutions”, actually executions for treason, were a response to threats on her life. If the pope had stopped calling for her assassination, things might have cooled down. I feel that she should have just exiled people and kept exiling them and after they returned twice—hanged them.

Anyway.

Mary I was also an incompetent monarch. She married an exceedingly unpopular man, Phillip II of SPAIN, which and whom everyone hated. Then she kept trying to get pregnant ,so much so that she developed one of the most florid cases of pseudocyesis on record–a “pseudopregnancy”, complete with swelling up. She kept on in this state until more than 9 months after Phillip left England–for good–and poor Mary eventually deflated. She was wildly hysterical about all of this, miserable, and made everyone miserable around her, all the while continuing to burn her heretics, burning over 300 people, one by one --maybe in groups?_-over 9 years is quite a record. In the meantime she did little to advance the the affairs of state in England. She lost Calais in the northern French coast, a prize of the British. She died, unmourned, relatively young.
 
Nothing more hilarious than trying to figure out who was more evil comparing execution methods :rolleyes:
 
bearcat101 said:
I believe that he was the first Archbishop of Canterbury and granted King Henry VIII his annulment after the pope controversely denied it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury 👍 St. Augustine of Canterbury was historically the first Archbishop, and he’s one of my all-time favorite missionaries! 😃
 
Jimmy_B said:
You are exaggerating and mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, today and in the middle ages. You’re aslo bringing up issues that the Church correct hundreds of years ago.

Also, I believe that you’re confusing “improper” indulgence of the past and those practiced in the Church today, which apparently you do not understand. I will explain them in further posts here or on another thread.

How were and are Protestant Churches built? Is there some magical Protestant money tree, that I’m not aware of?

I don’t get your point here.

Finally, Catholic priests and nuns do not receive a salary, they take a vow of celibacy and poverty. How many Protestant preachers do this? So, where does that money come from for non-Catholic Christian ministers and preachers and who decides how much a minister should receive in pay? I guess that depends on the non-Catholic Christian denomination… right?

When Mother Theresa died, the only things that she owned were two dresses and one purse, no Cadillac, no Rolex, no big house…two dresses and one purse, that’s it.

Thank you for your post.
Click to expand...
Indulgences are not a problem for non-Catholics just because of the money angle - even with that removed, they are a serious theological problem. Non-Catholics also have problems with the Catholic understanding of penance - the two are related.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I don’t know. Some Anglo-Catholics I know wouldn’t have a problem with 'em! 😛
Click to expand...
That may be so. Old Catholics of some stripes maybe too. But most Protestants, and the Orthodox, and even I think the OO do not accept the Catholic understanding.

I am often surprised that Catholics think that the money issue is the problem - most don’t realize that others also have a problem with the whole Catholic system of penance. A lot assume that since members of the OC go to Confession, they must have the same kind of penances.
 
Jimmy_B said:
You are exaggerating and mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, today and in the middle ages. You’re aslo bringing up issues that the Church correct hundreds of years ago.

Also, I believe that you’re confusing “improper” indulgence of the past and those practiced in the Church today, which apparently you do not understand. I will explain them in further posts here or on another thread.

How were and are Protestant Churches built? Is there some magical Protestant money tree, that I’m not aware of?

I don’t get your point here.

Finally, Catholic priests and nuns do not receive a salary, they take a vow of celibacy and poverty. How many Protestant preachers do this? So, where does that money come from for non-Catholic Christian ministers and preachers and who decides how much a minister should receive in pay? I guess that depends on the non-Catholic Christian denomination… right?

When Mother Theresa died, the only things that she owned were two dresses and one purse, no Cadillac, no Rolex, no big house…two dresses and one purse, that’s it.

Thank you for your post.
Click to expand...
There are lots of things that I don’t understand about the Catholic church. Indulgences are one thing because they are nowhere to be found in Scripture. I tried for seemingly hours to find some reference to them at least and couldn’t do it. Can someone show me where they might be?? I’ve had no luck! All of the Catholics beliefs about Mary as well. Nothing in Scripture at all that I can find. I am missing something here? And all of those middle ages Popes. Geeesh! Those were some really bad characters. One of them even tried to sell the papacy I read. Oh my gosh, that surely doesn’t sound like any kind of church founded by Christ. Maybe there is something here I am not understanding, I don’t know.
 
bearcat101 said:
There are lots of things that I don’t understand about the Catholic church. Indulgences are one thing because they are nowhere to be found in Scripture. I tried for seemingly hours to find some reference to them at least and couldn’t do it. Can someone show me where they might be?? I’ve had no luck! All of the Catholics beliefs about Mary as well. Nothing in Scripture at all that I can find. I am missing something here? And all of those middle ages Popes. Geeesh! Those were some really bad characters. One of them even tried to sell the papacy I read. Oh my gosh, that surely doesn’t sound like any kind of church founded by Christ. Maybe there is something here I am not understanding, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I think I’ll start a thread on Indulgences; something often misunderstood and mischaracterized… night tonight though. 🙂
 
What going on in here? Is it like to be Anglican is to be banned here or what? I have seen several Anglicans such as Gurneyhalleck1 and Soldier X banned. Was just curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top