“Let’s go back to Luther’s 95 Theses, shall we?”
Not a single one of the 95 theses actually shows a single source about a pope or council authorizing the sale of indulgences. Tetzel was not a pope. He was not a council. He was just a priest and was not authorized to sell indulgences as his own appointment letter makes clear.
Thanks for playing.
An indulgence was "granted" if money was contributed.
It's an exchange of funds for a good.
In any part of the educated western free world, that would be called a sale....except in the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholics love to play these semantic games to get around what they're doing. They remind me of the Pharisees so much.
I hope he isn't teaching business classes...or any classes for that matter.
I'm sure this all seems like a game to you, but it's not to me. Did you read the points I gave? Did you miss the parts about the selling of indulgences that went on before the Reformation, the many bishops and popes who authorized them, the appointment of Tetzel AND others to go out and sell the indulgences, the financing of St. Peter's Basilica refurbishing as well as the personal gambling debts of the pope, etc.? How is it possible to quibble over semantics when everyone already acknowledges there were abuses with the selling of indulgences? Luther's primary objection to this practice was that it cheapened confession and missed the whole reason for repentance. Seeing as he WAS a doctor of the church, I'm sure he knew what he was talking about and I'd take his experience over that of a Catholic apologist five hundred years later.
I'm pretty sure you opened this thread for the sole purpose of arguing with "Protestants" and probably to boast of your superior knowledge of history. I've yet to read any objective history from you and conclude it all is rather a game. I won't play.