Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
“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.)”
No. No archbishop, bishop, or priest was ever authorized by any pope to sell indulgences. That was a violation of canon law. Albrecht’s own instructional letter for the preachers of indulgences shows they were not to be sold. It’s not like this hasn’t been shown here before: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3466712/posts?page=355#355
“From whom would that message have emanated? He lamented that his Revolt had produced “as many sects and creeds as there are heads.”
Sects, creeds, etc. are insignificant.
The Glorious Gospel of Grace is all that matters.
Churches that hold forth the Word of truth, teach the Gospel of Grace.
If a church does not teach this, it is not one of His assemblies.
One of the 56 Signers was a Catholic, Charles Carroll of Carrollton. None of them were Jewish. The rest were Protestant if they had any religion (I don’t know if someone like Thomas Jefferson could be considered a Protestant at that point in his life).
“From Martin Luther to Scientology - a recognized religion by the IRS...What else could go wrong?”
Do you think the system whereby men like Tyndale were burned at the stake for translating the scriptures into English is just fine? And it is the founders of the US who were foolish by enshrining into the Constitution freedom of religion?
“Maybe you did. But since he’s not in charge of that house, maybe you should think more logically.”
—
In better terms it could be put as “family members need to stage an intervention” on the ol’ man.
“church authorities didn’t execute people”
Who crucified Jesus? The Romans? Or the Jews? According to John, it was the Romans. But according to Peter, it was his own people, the Jews:
John 18:31-32
Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die.
John 19:23
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece.
Acts 2:22-23
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.
The reality is that everyone is guilty of the death of Jesus because He died because of our sins.
It is a particularly wicked and pernicious excuse you are making to say that church leaders did not kill anyone. They knowingly and willfully had men like William Tyndale burned alive for translating the Bible into the language of the commoners who did not know Latin. Tyndale did so at the direction of God, to fulfill the command of Christ to take the Gospel to all nations, languages, and families.
In every way the clergy of that era showed themselves to be children of their father the Devil, just as those who claimed to be “Abraham’s seed” and rightful heirs to his promises, were the same ones who killed Jesus.
Who in this picture resembles Jesus and the apostles? And who in this historical account resembles the religious leaders of God’s chosen people?
The religious leaders were in their positions, appointed by God. Yet they wickedly killed Jesus and His disciples. Likewise, leaders in Rome wickedly killed the disciples and followers of Jesus in their day.
That you would affirm and justify their actions is truly frightening. That is, it is frightening for your wellbeing.
“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.”
It is not a quick condemnation. We’ve had centuries to look at these deeds and see how plainly diabolical they were. At least some of us realize that, if not everyone does.
Jesus and the apostles dealt with persistent heresy and unrepentance by teaching excommunication, not murder. There are crimes appropriate for the state to deal with, and the enforcement of church doctrine is not one of them.
And yes, the Reformation did lead to the end of these things eventually. Sure, men like Tyndale had to be tortured to death in order for the Bible to be translated into English. But eventually the tide turned. And some of the reformations of the true church became codified into the US Constitution which mandates the God-given right of the people to freedom of religion, not dictated by the state, and that punishment for real crimes will not include cruel and unusual punishments (such as being burned alive).
As for such “logic” being reasonable, it was logic from the pit of hell that allowed a man, who was acting in obedience to God to translate the holy scriptures into English, to be burned alive for his obedience. But it is consistent with how the true church of God was formed and spread throughout the whole world.
The high priest held a real position of authority given to him by God. He even prophesied that “one man should die for the people” so that the nation would not perish at the hands of the Romans. And yet, he was controlled by Satan and moved to murder Jesus.
Likewise, Judas had a true bishopric. He was a true apostle, chosen and appointed by Christ Himself. Judas had real authority by which he could proclaim the true message of Christ, heal the sick, and cast out demons. Yet, Satan entered into him, and he betrayed our Lord to the death.
And in a similar fashion, religious leaders murdered the true servants of Christ for their obedience to Him, during the Inquisition.
You can justify, excuse, ignore, or condemn these actions. Just know that you will give an account to God for your error if these men were of God. Your own words will be used against you in judgment because you have said that “heresy is worse than murder.” Be careful that it is not you that your own words condemn.
Matthew 12:37
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Jewish Law, when I am talking about the situation in Christendom.
And you were given bad information on Tyndale. He was condemned because his translation was heretical, not because it was made at all. English Bibles were made before his time, and after it, with the approval of the Church.
Offered. For those who gave alms.
Offered. Gave alms.
No sale.
Thanks for proving my point. The Church did not sell indulgences.
You really don't buy what you wrote do you??
I give the church money, they give an indulgence. Sure sounds like a buy-sell contract to you. You should go write speeches for Bill and Hillary.
“You really don’t buy what you wrote do you??”
Indulgences were never authorized to be sold by the Church. NEVER.
“I give the church money, they give an indulgence.”
No. You DONATED money to an indulgence preacher. And that was usually after confession, and permission from your parish priest. If you did all that was required for the indulgence, it was given to you. EVEN IF YOU HAD NO MONEY TO DONATE. The poor were given the indulgence even if they had no donation. That shows there were no sales authorized by the Church. If they were sales, then money would be a necessity.
“Sure sounds like a buy-sell contract to you.”
Not to me. 1) There was more involved than money. 2) The money was clearly a donation. 3) The indulgence was given to the poor even though they had no money. Hence, no sale.
“You should go write speeches for Bill and Hillary.”
Well, since you’re the one who is saying something that is untrue and nonsensical you’re a much better candidate for that role. Follow your programming now.
You keep believing that as a good catholic. Denial must be a wonderful thing. History however understands what Leo did.
“You keep believing that as a good catholic.”
I’m a historian. You can’t show me any evidence against what I said. I already know that none has ever been found.
“Denial must be a wonderful thing.”
You would have to tell me. I just deal with reality. This is why you won’t post any evidence of the Catholic Church ever once authorizing the sale of indulgences - because none exists.
“History however understands what Leo did.”
Well, I’m a historian and what you’re saying is simply untrue. I think you might know it’s untrue as well and that’s probably why you don’t even attempt to make a case. But you have to stick to your programming.
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
The world we now inhabit is, in a sense, the world we deserve. To borrow from Scripture: the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children. The Reformation began with sincere questions of truth, belief and practice. It foundered on human obstinacy and violence on all sides, bringing forth an entirely new and drastically different consciousness.
Proving that the title for the OP is horribly wrong. The writer even admits it. Luther didn't "forge" the world of the Christian faith we have today and the only horror today that he might feel is the same kind ALL Christians have when the gospel is perverted and corrupted by obstinate and depraved men - it's never stopped.
Leo made the case already. You just refuse to see it. That’s a bad historian that doesn’t understand history.
“Leo made the case already. You just refuse to see it. That’s a bad historian that doesn’t understand history.”
Leo X NEVER authorized the selling of indulgences. There’s not even one document from his pontifical office that says he did. The preaching of indulgences is not the selling of indulgences and the selling of indulgences was forbidden by canon law.
I understand history and researched this in great detail years ago. You have never read a single book on the subject. You’re never read a single scholarly article on the subject. All you have ever done is follow your programming like a good little drone. You’re doing it now.
You have no idea of my academic background.
I've asked for you to substantiate yours previously but you refuse.
“Proving that the title for the OP is horribly wrong. The writer even admits it. Luther didn’t “forge” the world of the Christian faith we have today and the only horror today that he might feel is the same kind ALL Christians have when the gospel is perverted and corrupted by obstinate and depraved men - it’s never stopped.”
No, Luther did forge much of the world as we have it today since he is the father of Protestantism. Whole nations abandoned orthodox Christianity for the novel set of ideas (many heretical) called Protestantism. This changed the destiny of nations and continents. Wars were started over this. Rebellions began over this. Already existing divides became more intense and religious in nature where no religious cause previously existed.
If a new religion could replace the only one anyone had ever known so could new states, new systems of economics, new cultural norms, new customs, and so on. This cannot be denied. We can look at Europe’s history and see it.
You’d be correct to say people left Roman Catholicism v Christianity. There is a difference.
“You send money I give an indulgence.”
1) There was no sending of money for an indulgence. People donated money to a person. They didn’t send money anywhere. See, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. You probably think people actually sent money off to Rome and were sent back an indulgence, right? No.
2) Even if you had no money, you were given the indulgence. Hence, no sale.
“I’ll grant an indulgence if you give money.”
I’ll grant you an indulgence even if you have no money to donate. Hence, no sale.
“It’s a sale no matter how you try to slice it.”
It’s not a sale no matter how you try to pretend it is and present no facts to show it is.
“You’re trying to argue semantics to justify your position.”
No, I’m just presenting facts to someone who apparently doesn’t know them, to someone who just showed in his last post that he can’t possibly have ever read a single book or article on the subject.
“Very typical or Roman Catholicism to have to redefine words.”
DONATE. SELL. Those are two different words. No redefinition is required. Do you know the difference between the two words? Very typical of enemies of orthodox Christianity to not know the real definition of words and apparently pretend two different words mean the same thing when they never do.
“But then again with you the Rules do apply.”
You must follow your programming, Protestant drone. You must obey. You must not actually think or read a book or do research. Obey your programming Protestant drone. Obey your programming. When presented with facts claim someone is pulling a fast one on you. Go ahead and claim two different words mean the same thing and falsely claim someone is redefining words when that isn’t happening at all. It’s a faulty program, but you must obey, drone, you must.
“You have no idea of my academic background.”
Nope. And I don’t particularly care. You’re not giving me any reason to think it’s at all substantial or worthwhile. You can’t even tell the difference between DONATION and SALE.
“I’ve asked for you to substantiate yours previously but you refuse.”
Aw, did that hurt your feelings? I know what I studied, what degrees I received, and so on. I don’t need to substantiate any of it to your liking. I don’t even remotely care about your supposed education so why would mine matter to you? You may have a whole pile of impressive looking sheepskins lining a birdcage somewhere and none of it apparently helps you distinguish the word DONATION from SALE. And that’s where it will stay.
No, I got it right the first time: “Whole nations abandoned orthodox Christianity for the novel set of ideas (many heretical) called Protestantism.”
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.