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.
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.
“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.