05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, snotnose, since it's being discussed, it's relevant to the discussion.
[b]But like all RCC doctrines there were loopholes of course.
Is this relevant to the discussion, or are you just doing your usual soapbox routine?
And this widespread practice continued for 100's of years with the knowledge of the Church.
And you will find (if you bother to look) plenty of evidence that various Popes tried to reign in the abuses at various points of time.[/b]
Some did, many didn't. The Church financially benefited from the practice beyond question. Did any Pope order refunds to be given?
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, snotnose, since it's being discussed, it's relevant to the discussion.
Yes, snotnose, since it's being discussed, it's relevant to the discussion.
Some did, many didn't. The Church financially benefited from the practice beyond question. Did any Pope order refunds to be given?
If it's relevant to the discussion, care to tell me how there's a "loophole" in the doctrine (not practice) of indulgences?
Aside: You've really got to learn some new abuse-words. "Snotnose" is getting rather out-of-fashion.
Some did, many didn't. The Church financially benefited from the practice beyond question.
What do you mean by "financially benefited"?
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI pay an alm (i.e. money) for some Church purpose like, I don't know, the building of St. Peter's Basilica for a wacky example. And I get a FREE indulgence, kinda like the bank giving you a toaster for opening an account, like this one:
[b]Yes, snotnose, since it's being discussed, it's relevant to the discussion.
If it's relevant to the discussion, care to tell me how there's a "loophole" in the doctrine (not practice) of indulgences?
Aside: You've really got to learn some new abuse-words. "Snotnose" is getting rather out-of-fashion.
Some did, many didn't. Th ...[text shortened]... om the practice beyond question.
What do you mean by "financially benefited"?[/b]
An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences
You're right; no financial benefit for the Church there; Luther did get it all wrong! Sorry.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou still haven't defined what "financial benefit" is.
I pay an alm (i.e. money) for some Church purpose like, I don't know, the building of St. Peter's Basilica for a wacky example. And I get a FREE indulgence, kinda like the bank giving you a toaster for opening an account, like this one:
An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of ...[text shortened]... ou're right; no financial benefit for the Church there; Luther did get it all wrong! Sorry.
The rest of your post is just the usual request for applause from the virtual gallery.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIgnoring the issue; how intellectually honest!
Ignoring the issue; how intellectually honest!
Who is the present owner of St. Peter's Basilica?
On the contrary, you're the one ignoring a direct question. For the third time, how do you define "financial benefit"?
Who is the present owner of St. Peter's Basilica?
Who "owns" Capitol Hill?
05 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFollow this line of reasoning:
[b]Ignoring the issue; how intellectually honest!
On the contrary, you're the one ignoring a direct question. For the third time, how do you define "financial benefit"?
Who is the present owner of St. Peter's Basilica?
Who "owns" Capitol Hill?[/b]
1) The Church received money from alms to build St. Peter's Basilica; at least some of these alms were contingent on people receiving an indulgence. This is a classic "quid pro quo";
2) The Church had St. Peter's Basilica built;
3) The Church owns St. Peter's Basilica;
4) St. Peter's Basilica is worth a LOT of money;
5) Thus the Church by the indirect selling of indulgences gained an asset that is worth probably hundreds of millions of dollars (how much do you think St. Peter's Basilica would go for on the open market?);
6) Gaining assets is a "financial benefit". I bet the Church accountants prepare a financial statement every year and I bet St. Peter's Basilica is listed as an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Wanna bet otherwise?
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIn the above, substitute:
Follow this line of reasoning:
1) The Church received money from alms to build St. Peter's Basilica; at least some of these alms were contingent on people receiving an indulgence. This is a classic "quid pro quo";
2) The Church had St. Peter's Basilica built;
3) The Church owns St. Peter's Basilica;
4) St. Peter's Basilica ...[text shortened]... lica is listed as an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Wanna bet otherwise?
1. "US Government" for "Catholic Church"
2. "Taxes" for "alms"
3. "Capitol Hill" (or "White House", or any of the National Museums) for "St. Peter's Basilica"
By your logic, the US Government "financially benefits" from your taxes, correct?
05 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, as an entity it does. If you are nitpicking over the word "financially" you may change it to "economically".
In the above, substitute:
1. "US Government" for "Catholic Church"
2. "Taxes" for "alms"
3. "Capitol Hill" (or "White House", or any of the National Museums) for "St. Peter's Basilica"
By your logic, the US Government "financially benefits" from your taxes, correct?
05 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that's your view of the world, then I have no dispute with it.
Yes, as an entity it does. If you are nitpicking over the word "financially" you may change it to "economically".
EDIT: They are not the terms I would use, however. If I give my government money to build a new museum or gallery that I am free to visit and enjoy, I wouldn't term it "financial benefit" for my government. Nor would I say the Government actually "owns" the museum or gallery - I (and my fellow citizens) do.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn this case, "my" view of the world happens to coincide with the reality of the world and your's doesn't. Are you free to walk into any part of St. Peter's Basilica anytime you please because you are a member of the RCC? Entities like governments and huge, multinational non-profit organizations do own property and buy and sell the same on a regular basis. Your version is kinda sweet, but legally and factually incorrect.
If that's your view of the world, then I have no dispute with it.
EDIT: They are not the terms I would use, however. If I give my government money to build a new museum or gallery that I am free to visit and enjoy, I wouldn't term it "financial benefit" for my government. Nor would I say the Government actually "owns" the museum or gallery - I (and my fellow citizens) do.
05 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe government is an agent of the people, fully accountable to and controlled by them. All government assets are thus the assets of the people. The people, via elected legislation, decide on how they will be used.
If that's your view of the world, then I have no dispute with it.
EDIT: They are not the terms I would use, however. If I give my government money to build a new museum or gallery that I am free to visit and enjoy, I wouldn't term it "financial benefit" for my government. Nor would I say the Government actually "owns" the museum or gallery - I (and my fellow citizens) do.
The Catholic Church is not an agent of its members. The Church's assets are not the members'. The members do no decide on how they are used - there is no such mechanism of control.