Who Follows Apollos?

Selling indulgences was, and is, against Catholic church Canon Law which states that benefices cannot be sold. So if a pope sold or sanctioned the selling of indulgences, he went against Canon Law. That would be a sin.
But then we all know popes sin, so-o... if indulgences were sold with the approval of the pope -- it only proves what we all already know and agree on.

If a pope or a Church official sold indulgences, it would not prove anything against infallibility.

Infallibility has to do only with official, public teachings given to the whole Catholic Church. Selling indulgences would not fit in that category. A doctrine on indulgences would. But you aren't talking about an official, public teaching. You're talking about an action done in one place and time.

Yes, a pope or Church representative could have sinned by selling indulgences because popes and Church prelates have certainly sinned. But did they? It's easy to show that various ones sinned by simony. But I have not found any proof that they sinned by selling indulgences. Yes, I've heard people, including priests, say that indulgences were sold, but no one quotes any documentation.
I have read that there is no record of what Tetzel said about indulgences.

Yet, it is possible to document a letter Martin Luther later wrote to Tetzel. The letter reads like an apology from Luther to Tetzel, saying Tetzel was not to blame for the fuss that came about after Luther posted his theses on the Church door. After reading several biographies about Luther, I can't imagine him writing an apology to anyone unless he felt it was a pretty serious matter that he needed to patch up.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>***I just thought I'd ask it again***<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Patience, Tuor. I am not ignoring you. I am leaving the answer on the history of indulgences to Pauline, when she has time. She is much more knowledgable about what was going on at that period of time in history. I will say that selling indulgences is not a teaching of the church. It is not a teaching on matters of faith or morals. This would have been a sin for the people involved, and it was stopped.

Remember, we teach Christ's Church is spotless because it was sanctified by Christ Himself Eph 5:25-27, not because popes or people within His church are sinless. After receiving the Holy Spirit, St. Peter never taught error, yet he was not sinless.

God Bless

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Disciple ]

 

Revelation,
Are you saying that impeccability is an attribute of the pope? That is not so. It is not Catholic teaching. And no Catholic who knows his faith believes that. We faithful Catholics know that all the popes are sinners in need of repentance and confession and absolution.

It is Catholic teaching that the pope, the bishops in union with the pope, and the entire Church in union with the pope has infallibility. The Church, Mt 28,19-20, is the teaching Church. Jesus Christ promised the apostles He would be with them to the end of time. Jesus' teaching is infallible, without error. Our teaching comes from Divine Revelation, from Jesus through the apostles. Therefore the apostles were given infallibility so we can know what they passed on is without error. Jesus guaranteed that by His promise to be with them. The only way Jesus can be with the apostles to the end of the world is by them having successors. And that fact that they had to elect a successor to Judas shows they understood this necessity for succession.

Because the package of dogma comes from Jesus, who is God, and because the apostles so carefully guarded over it, handing on only what He gave them -- our dogmas are infallible, without error.

Jesus did establish a Church. He did give it leaders. He did intend for those leaders to have successors. And it is by those leaders that He is keeping His promise to be with the teachings of the apostles until the end of time.

If this is not all true -- then Jesus Christ's own words have failed. If it is true, then He has kept His promise. And, if He has kept His promise, then there is a sure place to go in this world to know what is truth.

And we find, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, that early Christians saw Jesus keeping that promise. They kept lists showing apostolic succession. They wrote, showing that the Bishop of Rome was Christ's Vicar on earth. And they further wrote, showing what teachings were statements of truth and some that aren't. So Christ is the Head of the Church. And the pope serves under Christ. And in order to serve correctly, Christ protects the pope from teaching error. Christ, who is Truth, will not allow His teaching Church to be led into doctrinal error.

It is interesting that none of our most sinful popes ever taught error. They could live wrong. But Christ did not let them teach any official, public teaching that was in error. He has kept His promise to protect the Church He established.

Pauline

 

Just a question. If the Pope is wtih sin and in need of repentance, which as a human he would be. Who does he tell his sins to in the confessional?

 

wishtolearn,
The pope has a spiritual director and confessor. The pope goes to confession once a week. He also has an annual retreat with a priest acting as retreat master and preaching a series of homilies on the spiritual life. I recently read one of the homilies from the last retreat. It was excellent.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
wishtolearn,
The pope has a spiritual director and confessor. The pope goes to confession once a week. He also has an annual retreat with a priest acting as retreat master and preaching a series of homilies on the spiritual life. I recently read one of the homilies from the last retreat. It was excellent.

Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for clearing that up. Always wondered about that.

 

Tuor,
You seem to be trying to build a case against Catholicism. For your case to stand, you must provide evidence that selling indulgences was an official, public teaching given by the pope to all Catholics worldwide. Are you prepared to do that? Otherwise, your case is empty air.

1. Do you have proof that indulgences ever were sold? And I mean evidence from the writings or documented words of Tetzel and/or the pope of that day?

2. What is your evidence that the pope gave an official, public teaching meant for all Catholics worldwide that indulgences should be sold?

I await your answer.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Tuor,
You seem to be trying to build a case against Catholicism. For your case to stand, you must provide evidence that selling indulgences was an official, public teaching given by the pope to all Catholics worldwide. Are you prepared to do that? Otherwise, your case is empty air.

1. Do you have proof that indulgences ever were sold? And I mean evidence from the writings or documented words of Tetzel and/or the pope of that day?

2. What is your evidence that the pope gave an official, public teaching meant for all Catholics worldwide that indulgences should be sold?

I await your answer.

Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't hold your breath.

 

Tuor,
Martin Luther never heard Tetzel preach. He went entirely on the word of one or more of his students. On top of that, he wrote a letter later on to Tetzel that amounts to an apology and saying that Tetzel wasn't to blame for the upset.

Add that to the fact that there is no record of what Tetzel said. And there doesn't seem to be evidence that indulgences were in fact sold.

In fact, we have some evidence on the opposing side.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
].

As far as I know...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very important qualifier.

You do not seem to make much of an effort to understand what the Church actually teaches, but have no problem with bearing false witness by repeating an erronous representation and passing judgement based on your own lack of understanding.

False witness is a serious matter, especially when it comes to the beliefs of fellow Christians and the Church.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
Do Catholics believe that anything we do here on earth can affect another's state in purgatory?

Here is a writing of Pope Leo X.

Do Catholics still believe that heretics burned at the stake is the will of the Spirit?

As far as I know, this was official Church doctrine of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Do Catholics believe that anything we do here on earth can affect another's state in purgatory?"

Yes. Do you believe that your prayers and offerings affect another's state on earth if it is in keeping with God's will?

"writing of Pope Leo X"

Went there... what's your point?

"Do Catholics still believe that heretics burned at the stake is the will of the Spirit?"

Referring to the Spanish Inquisition? Are you aware that most who died suffered at the hands of secular judges.

BTW, why all the hate? When you became a new creation, shouldn't that have changed?

 

Tuor,
Thanks for the links. I enjoyed reading them. Especially the one by Pope Leo. I was impressed by his charity. And his strong stand against doctrinal error.

You keep saying things are Catholic teaching that have nothing to do with Catholic dogma.
Then you say some teaching has been changed. Dogmas can never be changed, never have been changed. That's important to remember in regard to Catholicism.

What is your exact point about burning heretics at the stake? In those days, every country did it. Every church group believed in it. So what is the point you want to make there? The Catholic Church didn't burn anyone. But the Church did try people and if their offense was serious enough did hand them over to the secular authorities.

The Catholic Church was the most humane of the institutions of that day and age.

The thought of their judicial system and methods really bothers us today, rightfully so. But it was all the people of that day knew. It's unfair to judge them by the standards of the 2000s. We built on their work, and stand on their shoulders. They broke ground in building a civilization and we benefit. Give credit where credit is due.

The more one studies history, the more one sees the necessity of letting the people of an age be themselves. Don't try to make them over in our image. They were what they were because of the way their world was then.

You and I may find out the hard way what it is to live in a world menaced by barbarianism to the extent that their's was. May God protect us and keep that from happening. But it could happen. I think 9/11 brought that home to us in an undeniable way

Pauline

 

Tuor,

Yes, the pope did want to raise donations for St. Peter's. And Tetzel was asking for donations. But that is very different than "selling" indulgences. The people could get the indulgence without giving a cent.
That doesn't sound like "selling" them, does it?

There definitely was scandal in the fact that the religious authority allowed Tetzel to come into his area in return for a promise of getting half the donations. But that still doesn't constitute "selling" the indulgences.

A later pope blamed the rich lifestyles of many of the Church prelates for the success of the Protestant break-away. He certainly was right. And many Catholics felt it was a judgment from God for the laxity that had crept into religious life at the highest levels in the Church. That's all true. But that still isn't "selling" of indulgences.

As I said before, Tetzel may have offered indulgences for sale. But in my research, I did not find any evidence to support the claim that he did. And there is evidence that seems to oppose that claim. One is the letter from Luther to Tetzel which amounts to an apology. Another is the fact that we know the indulgences were offered for other reasons than monetary donations.

Pauline