Читать книгу Essentials in Church History - Joseph Fielding Smith - Страница 39

Table of Contents

Some of these ecclesiastical rulers became so avaricious and filled with the spirit of greed that they advanced the blasphemous doctrine of forgiving sins by the sale of indulgences. It is claimed by the Church of Rome that these evils were the sins of individuals who perverted the doctrine of the church in relation to penance and forgiveness of sin. The indulgence was, according to their teaching, “a pardon usually granted by the pope, through which the contrite sinner escaped a part, or all, of the punishment which remained even after he had been absolved. The pardon did not therefore forgive the guilt of the sinner, for that had necessarily to be removed before the indulgence was granted; it only removed or mitigated the penalties which even the forgiven sinner would, without the indulgence, have expected to undergo in purgatory.”¹

However, the sale of indulgences in various parts of Europe, was a means of creating large fortunes for those who sanctioned it. There was no crime in the category for which the power of forgiveness was not offered if the party seeking it could pay the price. The various countries were districted and farmed for the collection of these revenues, according to John Lathrop Motley, the historian, who writes:

“The price current of the wares offered for sale was published in every town and village [in the Netherlands]. God’s pardon for crimes already committed, or about to be committed, was advertized according to a graded tariff. Thus poisoning, for example, was absolved for eleven ducats, six livres tournois. Absolution for incest was afforded at thirty-six livres, three ducats. Perjury came to seven livres and three carlines. Pardon for murder, if not by poison, was cheaper. Even a parricide could buy forgiveness at God’s tribunal at one ducat, four livres, eight carlines. Henry de Mountfort, in the year 1448, purchased absolution for that crime at that price. Was it strange that a century or so of this kind of work should produce a Luther? Was it unnatural that plain people, who loved the ancient Church, should rather desire to see her purged of such blasphemous abuses than to hear of St. Peter’s dome rising a little nearer to the clouds on these proceeds of commuted crime? … The Netherlands, like other countries, are districted and farmed for the collection of this papal revenue. Much of the money thus raised remains in the hands of the vile collectors. Sincere Catholics, who love and honor the ancient religion, shrink with horror at the spectacle offered on every side. Criminals buying paradise for money, monks spending the money thus paid in gaming houses, taverns, and brothels; this seems to those who have studied their Testaments a different scheme of salvation from the one promulgated by Christ. There has evidently been a departure from the system of earlier apostles. Innocent conservative souls are much perplexed; but at last all these infamies arouse a giant to do battle with the giant wrong.”²

Thus were the prophecies of the scriptures fulfilled; the laws transgressed by a power that exalted itself “above all that is called God” and in his sacred name speaking “great words against the Most High.”