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.

[redstar826]

I don't know about in the past, but I'm pretty sure they don't do it now.

One argument anti-Catholics often use to attack purgatory is the idea that the Catholic Church makes money from promulgating the doctrine. Without purgatory, the claim asserts, the Church would go broke. Any number of anti-Catholic books claim the Church owes the majority of its wealth to this doctrine. But the numbers just don’t add up

[whune]

hm, that's interesting

I'd no opinion on purgatory:
I've been watching "Luther;"
and a large part of the film has to do with the Catholic Church using sensationalistic tactics to compel the people to pay money to get their loved ones out of purgatory.

I thought I'd ask if that's true
I also should have asked how far back it goes.
It seems damning to the Catholic church in general.

[underlankers]

Bah, the most damaging thing to any Church is what happened to Eastern Orthodoxy under the Moscow Tsars.

That's bad. This is nothing.

[martiancyclist]

The CPSU managed to undo most of that.

[essius]

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first pope. However, historians have been unable to verify that he was even the first bishop or primary apostle in Rome, let alone first pope. New Testament evidence suggests that the church in Rome existed some time before Peter finally arrived on its scene (perhaps around the 60s); Peter isn't mentioned in Romans 16 or Hebrews, for instance. Also, in his first epistle Peter ranks himself among the other elders (5:1), and also appears to have authority not in Rome but in "Babylon"-i.e., outside of Rome (see 5:13).

[whune]

ok, so even if he was the 'first pope'...

where is it written that this honor is some kind of [holy monarchy], that can be passed on at will?

[underlankers]

Nowhere in Scripture is the papacy written, at the time of Scripture being written, freeborn adult males were a rarity in the Church. The Papacy emerged by a very specific series of circumstances and its power was not fully established until around 900 AD. Looking for the post-Byzantine Italian papacy in Julio-Claudian Rome is going to end in failure.

[wc_helmets]

Looking for the post-Byzantine Italian papacy in Julio-Claudian Rome is going to end in failure.

There are many sources that site giving honor to the Church of Rome and honor to the Bishop of Rome way before 900AD (some as early as 2nd century), so I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

[catholic_heart]

Yes. It was never a teaching of the Church that indulgences were to be sold, but it also is rather clear that the Church hierarchy did nothing to stop it, and certainly seemed to "unofficially" endorse it. There is no doubt that there were severe abuses and problems in the Church during Luther's time. To deny that would be to turn a blind's eye towards history. I obviously disagree with the result of the Reformation, but the causes behind it are many and very real. Not all of them, mind you, were intentional abuses, some of the problems were more the matter of circumstance, but there were abuses, too, no doubt.

Since you're watching "Luther," if you'd like to follow it up with a good book, Richard Marius has an excellent one called Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. It gives great biography as well as some insight into the condition of the Church at the time.

[whune]

wow, I'm impressed:

you're the first Catholic, I think, in this post, that hasn't denied it happened.

I'll check the book out; thanks.

[napoleonofnerds]

I didn't deny it happened, I denied that the Church as a whole did it in the way you claimed to. I wanted a precise definition, not broad strokes.

[whune]

I find the fact it wasn't stopped, by the church for 50 years, and even then not until after Luther made a stink about it... to be quite damning of the entire Catholic Church, at the least: the papal order of that time.

[arago_sama]

Peter had primacy, I think the Church will say. My European History teaching in high school said to us, 'Peter was the first pope.' As a Protestant, I have no problem with this idea.