What a protestant said about the sell of indulgences.

fames · #1 Jun 27, '12, 7:05 am

Quote:

We must remember the historical reason that caused the Church of Rome to add deuterocanonical books in the canon, that is the discussion about indulgences started by Martin Luther on 1517, in fact the old canon was clearly supporting the thesis of Luther.
The council of Trent - that was held in 1545 with the specific purpose to answer the Protestant Reformation - added these books in the canon to provide the Church scriptural basis for defend Its work.
In fact we read - in 2Ma 12:38-45 - how Judas Maccabaeus has offered money and prayers for the sins of idolatry of his death soldiers: 43 after this he took a collection from them individually, amounting to nearly two thousand drachmas, and sent it to Jerusalem to have a sacrifice for sin offered, an action altogether fine and noble, prompted by his belief in the resurrection.This is contrasting with what the real gospel says:
1john 1:7 "But if we live in light, as he is in light, we have a share in another's life, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin."
Only the blood of Jesus can clean us from all sin !
Since the inclusion of deuterocanonical books, that introduced obvious contradictions with the real inspired books, the Church of Rome has started to delegitimize the Bible.
Its also interesting to note that the Council of Trent said that the regula fidei of the Church is both in the Scriptures and Traditio, but it contradicts itself applying `Sola Scriptura`, adding books in the canon for justify its doctrine.
In other words, it contradicts itself inserting books in contradiction with the rest of the Scripture, and use the contradiction itself as proof of its no-contradiction. I'm shocked...

Sorry if the translation is not perfect.

What would you answer ?

kkollwitz · #2 Jun 27, '12, 8:02 am

Trent in no way defended the sale of indulgences.

JM3 · #3 Jun 27, '12, 8:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fames

What would you answer ?

1) The first letter of John is not one of the Gospels.

2) This person needs to learn some history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

TheDoors · #4 Jun 27, '12, 8:41 am

The bible as currently set up by catholics was first used in the councils of Carthage, at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th. This is a common arguement from protestant circles, that the evil papists went and added books into the bible. The council of Trent, however, gave an official capacity to the latin Vulgate, which was assembled by St. Jerome sometime around 385. I'm afraid these are the closest I can get off-hand, I'm sure some of the more learned members of this forum can provide much better (and more accurate) facts in response to your protestant friend.

**Contarini** · #5 Jun 27, '12, 8:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fames

Sorry if the translation is not perfect.

What would you answer ?

That the claim is false.

That's all you need to answer. They're engaging in the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and even beyond that they're ignoring the fact that Trent simply made official and binding what was already the common belief and practice of the Church, with a few cautious dissenting voices from scholars.

Edwin

SonCatcher · #6 Jun 27, '12, 9:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fames

Sorry if the translation is not perfect.

What would you answer ?

my answer?

Nonsense! Rome was aware of the abuses that were rampant in that time and was working out how to combat them. The Magesterium agreed with Luther that the sale of indulgences was Simony (a grave sin) and only disagreed on how to combat the problem.

Gamera · #7 Jul 1, '12, 6:58 pm

Hoo boy, where to start? No books were "added" to the Bible after the death of the last Apostle. It was the Protestant Reformers who removed books from the Bible. No contradiction exists between penance and salvation by Christ's shed blood (anyone claiming otherwise does not understand what penance is). Sale of indulgences never was an approved practice, so no issue there. And, I must say, I've been doing this for a while now and that is the first time ever I've heard a fundamentalist accuse the Catholic Church of following sola scriptura. Obviously, the fact that the Church refers to Scripture does not mean the Church is somehow abandoning Apostolic Tradition.