Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
“They” never did. The laity did and, as with the Inquisitions, such measures were condemned by the Church.
They do not sell indulgences
This was never an official act. There was a priest charged with raising funds for the expansion of a church building, who went forth and began to solicit people, telling them that their contribution would merit an indulgence. However, he did not present it quite that way, instead “overselling” it by leading people to believe that indulgences could be purchased. This has never been true, nor implied or asserted by the Church.
And they cooperate with Protestants in many important civil matters like electing politicians who are pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-faith, and pro-family.
Indeed, and this is true ecumenism. Standing on the front lines of the abolitionist movement with non-Catholic Christians has been a great honor for me. On the matters you just mentioned, it is the perfect time to set aside our differences and do God’s work as one.
From whom would that message have emanated? He lamented that his Revolt had produced “as many sects and creeds as there are heads.”
“God has been calling people to Himself, through His Son Jesus our Lord and Savior, down through the centuries (before and after the Reformation), from all denominations and religious and irreligious backgrounds. And He has and is transforming these chosen ones through the power of the cross.
Salvation is through Him.”
Beautiful! Amen.
“The Church never did. Some unscrupulous members of the Church violated canon law and did so.”
The Church is the people who make up the church. And certainly there are false believers within churches. But even true followers of Christ sin and make mistakes. God wants repentance and correction of these errors.
Indulgences are not merely a breaking of “canon law” but of the commandments of God revealed directly through scripture. Congregants are supposed to obey those in authority over them in the church. But this is more than that.
Any extra biblical writings are only as valuable and significant as their ability to help organize and clarify the message of scripture. They must never be treated as a higher authority than scripture or as infallible. We have clear examples and proof of this from the scriptures.
“The Church never did. The state did.”
That’s like Paul saying he never threw any stones at Stephen. He participated in Stephen’s martyrdom. Representatives of the Catholic Church instigated these murders.
It is similar today to how certain Muslims commit murder as suicide bombers. Society reasonably expects for all Muslims to denounce such actions, or we consider them complicit.
The doctrinal errors in the church led to horrific crimes. And the Reformation was not a human effort, but a cleansing that God did of His Church over a period of time. And He is still doing so today.
Those who deny rather than confess the sins that were committed are not even taking the first required step of repentance.
Of course, this is not to say that you or others in the Catholic Church are complicit today. But those who did these things in those days will answer to God for them.
God commands individuals and Churches to repent. We see this in Revelation 2-3. The majority of churches in Asia, even those who had a lot of good things to be commended for, also needed repentance.
God calls the lost to repentance unto faith for salvation. And he calls Christians to repent when we sin. And he calls churches to repent when churches commit sins as well.
Christendom, within all denominations, is full of hypocrisy, false doctrines, willful disobedience, and moral failures by well-intentioned people. God wants to correct these things. When people harden their hearts in stubborn unrepentance, the sins remain.
The Spirit of God testified and warned the churches in Revelation of the consequences of not repenting. One church was warned of being spit out of His mouth.
You can not repent of someone else’s sins. But you can acknowledge the sins of those who are or were part of your church. Daniel confessed his sins and acknowledged the sins of his people.
Yep, in 1517 Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Unscrupulous church member Pope Leo X.
The gig was up with the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and Muslims driving Eastern Christians into Western Europe with all their scriptures then the invention of the printing press. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic and wanted the church to change. Funny to see Roman Catholics invoking Martin Luther and the rot in Christendom on a whole. Faux Christendom don’t believe the Bible and believe a lie. Will there be any Imams kissing the Bible?
The Reformation is the road paved with good intentions. From Martin Luther to Scientology - a recognized religion by the IRS...What else could go wrong?
Technically, they never did. Heresy was a civil crime that was prosecuted by the state, not the Church. If you read the transcripts of the Inquisition trials that led to the death penalty they end with "and he was handed over to the secular arm to be burned".
What was condemned by the Church? Burning heretics? That was never condemned.
As I said above, church authorities didn't execute people, but they absolutely recommended it to secular governments in serous cases.
Do you know how the Church ultimately got involved? Do you know how the Inquisition came about?
Ok, so I am a local lord, and I don't like you. Maybe I want your land. I control the government and the courts. So I accuse you of being a heretic, try you, condemn you, and take your land. It was very easy, because if you get someone talking about theology it's very easy to trip them up I don't care how smart they are. And I'm a layman--so where do I get off accusing another layman of heresy?
So the Church said; "Aw no. WE and we alone have the power to determine what is heresy and what isn't. So we will take over the part of the trial dealing with heresy, and then we will make our recommendation to the court about what should be done."
That was the Inquisition.
It wasn't perfect, because as we can see with St. Joan of Arc, the process could still be corrupted, but it was an improvement. And remember...the death penalty for heresy was handed out very infrequently. I think in the single digits, percentage wise.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn those who advocated for the death penalty for heresy in previous ages. They had a certain logic to their position: heresy is worse than murder, for it is infinitely worse to kill a man's soul than to kill his body. In any case, the Reformation didn't do much to change that attitude, they just flipped it around. Catholics were killed in England, Calvin sentenced Servetus to the stake, etc.
I think it’s 53 of the 56 signers of the Declaration were Protestants.
Given that America was founded primarily and vastly from Englishmen, it is no surprise that most of them worshipped by some variation of the Church of England. 80% of them were either Episcopalian (Anglican) or Congregationalist. That 97% were “Protestants” can hardly be surprising.
Now if America were founded by Irishmen or Spaniards, it would have been a very different thing.
“Who was Tomas de Torqemada and what office did he hold granted by which Pope?”
He was an inquisitor. And he never burned anyone. He was of Jewish descent by the way.
Oh, and I should mention that the office of the inquisition in Spain was a national institution owned by the state. Six popes tried to reform it and were told to butt out by the Spanish crown.
“I had a bit bigger house in mind there.”
Maybe you did. But since he’s not in charge of that house, maybe you should think more logically.
“Maybe so, maybe not, however, it was the Grace of God that led to the rise of Protestantism.”
There’s no evidence of that. In fact, the evidence would suggest otherwise.
“Why would any Catholic pope brag about that?”
What bragging? It just as statement of fact.
“Yep, in 1517 Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Unscrupulous church member Pope Leo X.”
Offered. For those who gave alms.
Offered. Gave alms.
No sale.
Thanks for proving my point. The Church did not sell indulgences.
Yeah, much more complicated in that the Vatican was low on cash due to the extravagant lifestyle of Leo X. So he was requiring a huge sum of Prince Albert for the archbishopric of Mainz. Prince Albert had a good credit rating and borrowed from the bank of Jacob Fugger. The Pope authorized the new Bishop of Mainz to sell indulgences with half the money from indulgences going to pay back the bank of Jacob Fugger the other half to fund the new basilica (St. Peters.)
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.