Does the RCC still sell indulgences?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
According to Dr. Hank Lindstrom's February 7 broadcast, they still do.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bibleline/

after approximately 15 minutes into the broadcast.

He gave the example that when Kennedy was assassinated, they accepted a large collection of indulgences to save his soul. Is this true?

This extensive, well researched article regarding the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath makes no mention of the RCC selling indulgences afterward. http://members.aol.com/doestar/jfk.html
Therefore, I am inclined to believe that DoctorHank is incorrect.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This extensive, well researched article regarding the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath makes no mention of the RCC selling indulgences afterward. http://members.aol.com/doestar/jfk.html
Therefore, I am inclined to believe that DoctorHank is incorrect.

It looks like I'll have to contact the Doctor himself and ask him for his source. I'll keep you posted.

Here is the conversation excerpt that I will be asking him to defend once I locate his email address:

Hank: The Roman Catholic Church, during those evil days, taught the doctrine of indulgences, which they haven't gotten rid of. [Here Hank gives a brief summary of the historical practice of selling indulgences.]

Caller: Is that still going on?

Hank: Oh yeah. When John F. Kennedy died, I think over...I don't know how many millions of dollars were given to the Catholic Church to get him out of purgatory, called indulgence money. It still goes on. In fact, I think they extort people at death to get them to say extra masses and light extra candles and all of that money paid is indulgence money to get them out of a place that doesn't even exist. There is no purgatory.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
According to Dr. Hank Lindstrom's February 7 broadcast, they still do.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bibleline/

after approximately 15 minutes into the broadcast.

He gave the example that when Kennedy was assassinated, they accepted a large collection of indulgences to save his soul. Is this true?

1. The RCC never sold indulgences - individual priests (i.e. without authorisation or legitimacy) did.

2. I don't know about Kennedy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. The RCC never sold indulgences - individual priests (i.e. without authorisation or legitimacy) did.

LMAO! I was just waiting for it. The old, reliable Simon Says defense.

I should revise my claim in this thread. Hank Lindstrom never said those things - his mouth did.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
LMAO! I was just waiting for it. The old, reliable Simon Says defense.

I should revise my claim in this thread. Hank Lindstrom never said those things - his mouth did.

After all this time, you still cannot tell the difference between an official position and one that is not. Sarcasm does not hide the fact that your logic is faulty. As I've pointed out before - that is sorely disappointing from a person who is a self-professed defender of rationality on this forum.

When the heart is not ready to believe, the mind deceives itself...http://www.newmanreader.org/works/oxford/sermon5.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
After all this time, you still cannot tell the difference between an official position and one that is not.

You're mistaken. I can. It's my fingers that can't, and they do the posting. My official position is that the RCC is wonderful; my fingers like to make straw men and degrade it. Please address your disparaging insults to them from now on, for I myself have done nothing to deserve them. I myself am perfect and infallible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're mistaken. I can. It's my fingers that can't, and they do the posting. My official position is that the RCC is wonderful; my fingers like to make straw men and degrade it. Please address your disparaging insults to them from now on, for I myself have done nothing to deserve them. I myself am perfect and infallible.

QED.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're mistaken. I can. It's my fingers that can't, and they do the posting. My official position is that the RCC is wonderful; my fingers like to make straw men and degrade it. Please address your disparaging insults to them from now on, for I myself have done nothing to deserve them. I myself am perfect and infallible.

Would you say that a government condoned murder because one of its officials murdered someone? 😛 Your fingers aren't very good at making straw men anyways. They might as well give it up.

Originally posted by Raindear
Would you say that a government condoned murder because one of its officials murdered someone? 😛 Your fingers aren't very good at making straw men anyways. They might as well give it up.

I'd respond to his lips & fingers analogies if I thought he didn't already see the flaw in his analogy. But I think he does know; it's just more convenient for him to pretend he can't see it (and give us his witticisms) because it serves his anti-Catholic position better.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
it serves his anti-Catholic position better.

I've already told you, my official position is that the RCC is wonderful. Now you're the one making a straw man when you say that my position is anti-Catholic.

Originally posted by Raindear
Would you say that a government condoned murder because one of its officials murdered someone? 😛 Your fingers aren't very good at making straw men anyways. They might as well give it up.

A man made, artificial entity cannot "do" anything; the men who are its agents are in reality the Roman Catholic Church, mystic mumbo jumbo aside. The proper questions would be:

1) Did employees/agents of the Church sell indulgences?;
2) Did they do so in the course of their employment/agency with the Church?; and
3) Did the Church forbid the practice prior to, contemporaneously with or soon after the selling was done (assuming they became aware that the practice was being done by their employees/agents)?

1 seems to be conceded; 2 seems logical. What is the factual evidence for 3?

Originally posted by Raindear
Would you say that a government condoned murder because one of its officials murdered someone? 😛

If he were found guilty, but stayed an official of the government, yes. If he were suspected, but the crime were not investigated because the government would fear the result, again yes. If the crime were investigated, he were found guilty, and were punished accordingly, no.

3) Did the Church forbid the practice prior to, contemporaneously with or soon after the selling was done (assuming they became aware that the practice was being done by their employees/agents)?

1 seems to be conceded; 2 seems logical. What is the factual evidence for 3?[/b]

"There are two notable declarations concerning the sale of indulgences, both pertaining to the purveyors of those indulgences that were not issued by any pope or council. The first was by Pope Clement V (1305-14) condemning the practice of selling indulgences. The second was by the council of Constance in 1418 revoking all indulgences containing the formula indulgentia a culpa et a poena, that is, the most common form of indulgence that was peddled illegally and incorrectly." From EWTN

Originally posted by no1marauder
A man made, artificial entity cannot "do" anything; the men who are its agents are in reality the Roman Catholic Church, mystic mumbo jumbo aside. The proper questions would be:

1) Did employees/agents of the Church sell indulgences?;
2) Did they do so in the course of their employment/agency with the Church?; and
3) Did the Ch ...[text shortened]... done?

1 seems to be conceded; 2 seems logical. What is the factual evidence for 3?

A man made, artificial entity cannot "do" anything

I'm surprised a lawyer would make such a statement. Of course a man-made ('man-made' automatically implies 'artificial'😉 entity/organisation can 'do' things. A corporation can purchase, own and transfer property or wealth. A non-profit organisation can send loans and other forms of aid to people in need. Naturally, the organisation will have to act through human agents so, in a sense, you are correct that a man-made organisation cannot 'do' anything [without human agents].

However, there is a significant difference between licit (and I'm not using this in the strictly legal sense - so don't go all constitutional on me) actions performed by those agents for the organisation (i.e. actions that are within the ambit or bounds of their agency) and those that go beyond the agenda that has been set for them. For instance, the CEO of a corporation may licitly purchase business assets on behalf of the organisation (because that is part of his job description), but he may not licitly use company profits to decorate his own home (as Tyco ex-CEO Kozlowski did). And this is true of individuals as well. If I give you £10 to buy me a pack of cigarettes, you may not licitly use it to buy me (or indeed yourself) a pizza instead.

This is just common sense - not rocket science.

1) Did employees/agents of the Church sell indulgences?
2) Did they do so in the course of their employment/agency with the Church?

You are using the terms 'employee' and 'agent' synonymously. I'm not going to argue corporate law with you - I'll just take it for granted that you're not going to misrepresent the law here. Nevertheless, an employee need not be an agent (to an external party, that is) and vice-versa. Nor do all the actions (even those purporting to be on behalf of the organisation) of an employee or an agent have to be licitly so (whatever the law says).

3) Did the Church forbid the practice prior to, contemporaneously with or soon after the selling was done?

Pope Pius V banned the granting of indulgences associated with financial transactions in 1567, but since indulgences were never licitly "sold" in the first place your question is partially moot. If you're referring to the illicit sale of indulgences, then the answer would be "after".

In any case, one never needed to give the Church money to get an indulgence in the first place. For instance, in 11th century England, one could gain an indulgence simply by reciting fifty psalms, or by giving one denarius to a poor man. More recently, I was suprised to find out that Pope Pius IX granted a partial indulgence simply for making the sign of the cross!