“So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences?”
Absolutely.
“Approved or not, since it went on it was not banned by the Pope at the time it was going on.”
It was banned. It was, in fact, a violation of canon law to sell indulgences.
“Priests are men, not God and therefore are inherently fallible regardless of whether they claim they are infallible.”
Your statement is illogical. First, say the following words, “George Washington was the first president of the United States.” You just made an infallibly true statement. Thus, to say “men...are inherently fallible” is a logical fallacy. Second, papal infallibility is about the Holy Spirit more than the pope since it is the Holy Spirit who ensures the infallibility. The Holy Spirit is always infallible and has no difficulty sharing His infallibility with the pope when He wishes (and no pope has ever claimed it except in the most narrow of circumstances anyway).
“The doctrine exists in the Catholic Church, not in the Bible.”
False. Infallibility is clearly the underlying standing of all of scripture. It is were not, then no one would ever think that scripture is true. Protestants have always believed in the infallibility of scripture: http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols34-36/chs2013.pdf
“Third, the Eastern Orthodox churches denied the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the churches leading to the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each other.”
False. 1) To impute the actions of one patriarch to all the patriarchs is wrongheaded. 2) The Patriarchs had previously - many times - sought out the pope to solve their disputes - thereby showing they believed in the primacy of the papacy. Read Soloviev’s book for numerous examples of such: http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“Catholics are free to be Catholic and Protestants and Orthodox are free to be what they are without other Christians criticizing.”
Actually no. We’re all free, but not free from “other Christians criticizing.”
“Concentrate on the threats of Islam and Communism rather than trying to question the legitimacy of other Christians.”
No. Although I would rather have to deal with an eastern world filled with Protestants rather than Muslims, I see no reason not to simply oppose all those who are wrong.
““So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences?”
Absolutely.”
And yet, it was a practice of the Catholic Church to sell indulgences, straight from the Pope himself.
“Pope Leo X (11 December 1475 – 1 December 1521), born Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, was the Pope from 1513 to his death in 1521. He was the last non-priest (only a deacon) to be elected Pope. He is known for granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter’s Basilica”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X
“Leo X, the pope in 1517, needed funds to complete the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Leo entered into an arrangement that essentially sold indulgence franchises that allowed the franchisee to retain about half the funds raised by selling indulgences in return for sending to Rome the other half for Leo’s construction project. To encourage indulgence sales, Albert of Brandenburg, one winner of the privilege of selling indulgences, advertised that his indulgences (issued by the pope) came with a complete remission of sins, allowing escape from all of the pains of purgatory”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...dulgences.html
“Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”
“The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. . . . Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
Your arguments are doctrinal and not historical. The Catholic Church did indeed sell indulgences whether or not you call them donations in kind or sales they were not just given away without remuneration. They clearly were not banned by all the Popes since they were originated by a Pope.
Infallibility is God’s and the Holy Spirit’s but you are saying that the Pope has a special direct line to God in “narrow circumstances” but your analogy to fact is idiotic. The Pope claims infallibility based on a belief that he receives the Word of God because of his office. In fact, he is a priest and a man and therefore inherently flawed. You are making the analogy between a fact i.e. that George Washington was the first President of the United States and the doctrine that the Pope has special insight into God’s will that no one else has. This is a matter of faith and doctrine and not fact. It’s your right to believe it and mine to not.
The infallibility of the Bible is not the same as the infallibility of a man - the Pope unless you believe that the Pope is more than a man. You are equating the Pope with the Holy Spirit. I don’t think you will find a Pope who claims this.
Please go back to the original article which seems to attack Protestants as the origin of this discussion. It was not Protestants attacking the Catholic Church.
The Bishop of Rome was first among EQUALS among the Bishop, not their Pope or Pontifex Maximus so it was not unusual to seek his guidance in disputes but not in terms of having to follow his edicts.
You are free to argue the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin to your heart’s content but the true threats to Christianity are those who would divide us, the atheists, Muslims and Communists. I personally accept Catholics as Christians and hope for the same in return.