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?

Re: who said anything about theology?

[underlankers]

The Papacy of Leo X, which was messed-up by previous papacies such as Alexander VI and Julius II. With the Ottomans about to invade, Leo X had little choice to do what he did. I don't condemn him for it.

Re: who said anything about theology?

[napoleonofnerds]

Very good answer. The only other clarification I'd make is that theologically, buying the indulgences wasn't necessary for anybody. The rich were expected to, but there was no negative repercussion for those who did not. It was due to the abuses of individuals who intentionally and immorally made false claims that any people thought they had to buy.

Re: everyone is biased, but not about the same things

[wc_helmets]

between Theravada and Mahayana and which one the Dalai Lama professes (neither, he's part of a third branch)

Off topic from the OP, but how is Tibetan Buddhism not Mahayana? Even the tantric practices seem grounded in Mahayana metaphysics.

Re: everyone is biased, but not about the same things

[underlankers]

Tibetan Buddhism is much more of a different branch. It is far more based on Tibetan animism merged with Buddhism, whereas Mahayana is the result of the merger of Han-and-Han-based cultures with Buddhism. Vajrayana Buddhism has certain unique factors that let it sustain itself to a degree on its own that few other Buddhist varieties accomplished.

[napoleonofnerds]

Why don't you read it, and if you have objections ask them to the community once you've got the basis to do so?

[whune]

gunslnger read it, then i did, when he illuminated this little nugget right here:

http://community.livejournal.com/christianity/3389449.html?thread=74501641#t74501641

according to catholic.com: it did happen

[lurker]

Uhm, wouldn't you want to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches? I'd think it'd be more accurate than to quote from the source rather than from another site.

[whune]

this came up; it changes things:

http://community.livejournal.com/christianity/3389449.html?thread=74501641#t74501641

[gunslnger]

On the myths page, it states that buying indulgences is a myth and the explanation is: The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Since the Protestant Reformation started in 1517, that means this was not a myth for around 50 years. I don't see how someone can sit there and expect to rewrite history that blatantly. Or maybe it's just sticking your head in the sand and pretending it never happened. I don't know.

[whune]

very interesting
i finally went ahead and read it;
thanks.

[napoleonofnerds]

No, it shows that the Church considered it abusive the whole time and banned it universally in 1567. The question was whether the Church sold indulgences to get souls out of heaven, and taught this was necessary. It did not. Certain men did, but they were liars who perverted doctrine, were condemned, and were finally outlawed 50 years later when it was determined that the system as it existed in that time was beyond repair. It's important to distinguish between indulgences being sold and the Church's approbation.

[whune]

Certain men did, but they were liars who perverted doctrine, were condemned, and were finally outlawed 50 years later

lol; right: if the church was so against it... why'd it take them fifty years to 'condemn it;' seems fishy that this was only after Luther made quite the hubbub about it.
I smell the rotting corpse of a scapegoat.

[martiancyclist]

Considering the size of western Europe, the number of crises going on at any given time, and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, I'd say fifty years is pretty quick.

[napoleonofnerds]

Get your nose checked. The Church condemned it locally, told people to stop doing it, deliberated about what course of action was best among many options, and eventually came to a considered response to a major problem. It takes time, especially before the re-invention of proper roads.

[whune]

lol wut

50 years?
deliberation?

are you serious?

you realize they had horses right?