questions of the Catholic church

[whune]

Is it true that the catholic church charged money to have people raised from purgatory?

'Upon this rock I build my church'
What connection does the Catholic church claim, between itself, and Peter?

Comments

[underlankers]

Yes, they did charge money to get people out of purgatory. It was called indulgences. Abuses of that system in Germany prompted Luther to divide the Church. The Church, after the Borgias got their grimy hands on the papacy was desperate for money, and indulgences were perfect for getting it. Herr Luther disliked that, and thus was laid the groundwork for the Reformation.

The Catholic Church's claim to separation from the Eastern Orthodox is that St. Cephas/Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, martyred there under Nero Augustus when he persecuted the Christians after the Great Fire. That meant that the See of Rome was an apostolic See, the only one in the West. Traditional Catholicism sees Peter as the temporal founder of Church authority under the Papacy, and Jesus ultimately as its head.

Any other questions?

[lurker]

Actually, they didn't charge for indulgences.

For a nice primer I'd recommend here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
and here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

and for the Catholic POV on Peter and the Papacy, I'd recommend starting here:http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
Hope these help.

[underlankers]

"If the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!"

And that is all.

[martiancyclist]

That all stems from a radical misunderstanding of what purgatory is supposed to be. But then, hardly anyone, even devout Catholics, understands what purgatory is supposed to mean. If you ask me, that makes it a Bad Dogma.

[napoleonofnerds]

I'm going to say this one last time. He was wrong. Everyone at the time knew he was wrong. Luther knew he was wrong, the bishops knew he was wrong, most people knew he was wrong.

[underlankers]

So why'd Lutheranism end up as successful as it did then?

Granted, a lot of monarchs saw a cheap excuse to make a quick buck on the Church property they seized, but that's no explanation for Lutheranism having filtered down as deeply as it has. The same applies for Protestantism if it was so clearly in error.

[napoleonofnerds]

I continue to believe that Protestantism in all its forms is not philosophically consistent. Some groups don't care, some groups keep it because it's what they know, some groups get as far away as possible, and some groups sort of know that but don't want to join the Church so they stay out anyway, but the doctrines all fall apart eventually.

The religion spread because the Church at the time had corrupt people in leadership roles (a phenomenon known to every religious organisation in the world) and because many nobles and those in positions of power (including at least one Cardinal) thought they'd be better off without the Papacy. Protestantism was a tool of the rich, the poor who didn't know better either way followed, and eventually it became a custom that people held to right or wrong.

[lazaruspdx]

Now, don't get me wrong, I admire Martin Luther as a reformer and I do think that God used him (I'm a former Lutheran). However, the reason Lutheranism was successful isn't as simple as "Luther was right." Many things converged. The time just happened to be right - historically, politically, socially, etc. There WERE other reformers before Luther. Jan Hus, anyone?? But the "stars weren't aligned," as it were. In many ways Jan Hus beat Luther to the punch, but politics of the time, etc did not lend itself to Hus. The time was right for Luther.

[whune]

the reason Lutheranism was successful isn't as simple as "Luther was right."

i don't believe that was his/her point.

I believe he/she was responding to the notion that '[everyone knew it was wrong]'

which simply can't be so, or else it wouldn't have taken root:
clearly it had to have wide support

[lazaruspdx]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the above statements. I reviewed this thread and I'm getting a little confused on who the "he" is we're referring to.

Regardless, I do think that the issue of whether Lutheranism and Protestantism were historically successful had less to do with the theological points being espoused than with a combination of that theology mixed with the correct social and political climate for those theological ideas to take root. I'm not discounting the theological points made by Luther or whomever. I just think it's more complex than it being widely known that a doctrine/theology/point of view is wrong or right.

[whune]

I'm curious how you can say that "Luther knew he was wrong."

[napoleonofnerds]

I'm not talking about Luther, I'm talking about Tetzel.

you said "Luther knew he was wrong,"

[whune]

http://community.livejournal.com/christianity/3389449.html?thread=74496265#t74496265

perhaps a typo?

Re: you said "Luther knew he was wrong,"

[napoleonofnerds]

No, I included Luther in a list of people who knew the one guy referred to at the start of the sentence was wrong. It's a simplification, but a useful one.

[catholic_heart]

So, have you seen catholicism? :-P

[whune]

no offense... but seeing as the links start with 'catholic.com'... I consider any information therein, about Catholicism, to be biased.