Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
From this website it appears this "granting" of indulgences for money which Roman Catholics, well, you, don't call a sale, had been going on for a while.
We won't even discuss the jihad initiated by Urban. That's another thread.
Frederick collected many relics in his castle church; his inventory of 1518 listed 17,443 items, including a thumb from St. Anne, a twig from Moses' burning bush, hay of the holy manger, and milk from the Virgin Mary. Money was paid in order to venerate these relics and thus escape years in purgatory.[5] A diligent and pious person who rendered appropriate devotion to each of these relics could merit 1,902,202 years worth of penance (an earthly equivalent of time otherwise spent in Purgatory, removed by indulgences).[6] Two years later, the collection exceeded 19,000 pieces.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_Elector_of_Saxony
And here I just though you guys played bingo all the time. LOL!
WINNING.
I think if we didn’t post to vlad and his buddy they wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. We seem to be the only ones willing to engage in a coversation with them.
That the counter reformation happened is an indictment against Roman Catholics they were doing what some Catholics on this thread are vehemently trying to deny. As my grandmother would say, bless their little hearts.
the 500th anniversary is just 17 days away.
Only 500 years too late, LOL
“I’m sure this all seems like a game to you, but it’s not to me.”
No, the exact opposite. None of the 95 theses mentions an actual SOURCE, an actual document, that says popes or councils authorized the SALE of indulgences. NONE. We know that unscrupulous people did in fact sell them, but they were NEVER authorized to do so by the central authority of the Church. No pope, no ecumenical council, EVER authorized the SELLING OF INDULGENCES. Indulgences were to be preached, not sold.
“I won’t play.”
You already did.
You keep proving me right.
“The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins.”
Clearly not a sale.
“Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn’t go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead.”
Offered contributions. No sale.
“In the early 1200s, the Church began claiming that it had a “treasury” of indulgences (consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints) that it could dispense in ways that promoted the Church and its mission.”
Dispense. Not sold.
Thanks for proving me right again.
Luther loved Frederick III. “Frederick III is commemorated as a Christian ruler in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod on 5 May.” Support heresy and get your own feast day in Lutheranism!
It's not a derogatory term and it was not coined by Prots.
Get over the faux offense that so many Catholics seem to delight in whenever someone not a Catholic says something.
Too many Catholics are too easily offended.
And taking offense is a indicator of spiritual immaturity as per the Scripture that Catholics like to claim their church *wrote*.
Well, if I were Lutherean you may have a point. However, I'm not so again you have no point (I call that WINNING). It seems Roman Catholicism is fascinated with Luther. To quote one of your fellow Catholics former taglines regarding Luther....he's living rent free in your head....now, at least it's not empty.
Quick! You need to go out and tell them all that they are wrong for using the derogatory term of *Roman Catholic*.
It’s why he’s is the mirror image of the Clintons.
They condemned the EXCESS of it, not the practice itself.
Here's something for Roman Catholics to consider....
Acts 8:14-23 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
salvation, the forgiveness of sins is a FREE gift to mankind. It is not earned or deserved.
Ephesians 2:1-10 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Where does it say that? Read the decree from the Council of Trent again. It specifically states:
The Council of Trent in its decree "On Indulgences" (Sess. XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people..
It speaks of granting (not selling) indulgences in moderation. Then it very clearly states that any and all criminal gain (i.e. selling indulgences) will be done away with.
If they are granting indulgences for nothing, than that is fine.
If they are *granting* indulgences after the exchange of or in exchange for, something, then it’s a sale.
I think the general point here is that Church practice includes granting indulgences (without cost). Abuses happened (indulgences for sale) and the Council of Trent is condemning those abuses.
metmom, what makes your comment look so especially insipid is that you clearly have not read the thread.
If you did read the thread, you would have noticed that in the English speaking world Catholics have long accepted to varying degrees the phrase “Roman Catholic” because it was enshrined in English law by bigoted Protestants who completely controlled what got into English law and how it got there.
You clearly did not read post #65, for instance. If you want an analogous example think of the “Pennsylvania Dutch” who are not Dutch at all, but German. The English speakers in Pennsylvania confused “Dutch” with “Deutsch” (which means “German”) and it stuck to the point that even the “Pennsylvania Dutch” themselves use the term even though it is obviously incorrect.
Protestants invented the term “Roman Catholics” and enshrined it in English law. Hence, English speaking Catholics ended up using it too. Most other Catholics never did, but you’ll find that English language websites for overseas non-English speaking dioceses sometimes use “Roman Catholic” because they assume that’s how to say it in English because that’s what they often find in English language books and dictionaries in their countries.
Obey your programming metmom. You must be a drone who repeats errors just like you did in your post. You must do it again and again.
“Well, if I were Lutherean you may have a point.”
No, the point stands whether you’re a Lutheran or not. Frederick III only has a feast day among Lutherans because he supported the heretic Luther. How is that fact changed depending on whether you’re a Lutheran or not?
If I said, “Sultan Rafi Sharif Bey is considered a spiritual master by the Moorish Orthodox Church of America” how on earth would that be changed by the fact that you’re not a Muslim, or not black (neither was he by the way), or not a Jew (which he originally was)???? What the one got to do with the other?
“However, I’m not so again you have no point (I call that WINNING).”
No, what I said is true and therefore it stands.
“It seems Roman Catholicism is fascinated with Luther. To quote one of your fellow Catholics former taglines regarding Luther....he’s living rent free in your head....now, at least it’s not empty.”
Luther is a fascinating figure: He was a strange and conflicted figure, probably bi-polar, brilliant and yet stupid at the same time, high-minded one moment and indecent and profane the next. As I mentioned before the three people who have the most biographies written about them throughout history are Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther. And that fact is not changed if you’re not a Lutheran either.
Resort to your programming now, eagleone.
“It’s not a derogatory term and it was not coined by Prots.”
Except it was and was. See post #65.
“Get over the faux offense that so many Catholics seem to delight in whenever someone not a Catholic says something.”
What offense?
“Too many Catholics are too easily offended.”
What offense?
“And taking offense is a indicator of spiritual immaturity as per the Scripture that Catholics like to claim their church *wrote*.”
Again, WHAT OFFENSE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.