Geoffrey Chaucer, of course, wrote the Canterbury Tales and one of his targets was the Pardoner, even though the church did not specifically approve of their excesses:
Despite canon law, the practice did become corrupt:
Chaucer wasn't the only one to criticize pardons:
... but he was maybe the first to publicize it in a populist manner for the time:
Martin Luther, despite the views of some revisionist historians, probably nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church in 1517 and the idea really began to take hold:
The threat to the Catholic church is in the idea that no one but G-d can forgive and extrapolated, that means that the Pope can aid, teach and point people in the right direction, intercede with G-d, possibly even heal ... but he can't actually forgive, nor can those he sends out to do so. This is contained in Mark 2:7:
Jesus, of course, argued that He had the authority to do that and the miracles he performed [and I have no doubt something happened, otherwise those huge crowds would not have followed Him] were material manifestations of that ability.
This is dangerous stuff, as anyone with a grasp of pyrotechnics, chemistry and the skill to speak authoritatively in pseudo-biblical language, such as Maitreya in Nairobi, [although some argue that he is something altogether different], can put on a spectacle to show he is the messiah.
Where the false messiahs fall down is that after the spectacle, there is nothing sustaining to go on with and none of the displays contain evidence of actual healing which stands the test of time. What follows is a lot of gobbledegook in blue and yellow watercolours and somewhere along the line, money comes into it. Share International is a front organization for this stuff.
What is interesting with many of these "messiahs" is how they try to ape the image of Jesus Christ in the popular imagination. Why not come as a Martian, for example? Why not as Mohammed? Why not the Buddha?
According to canon law, a pardoner or quaestor of alms did not have the right either to forgive sin or to sell indulgences. Indulgences remitting punishment for sin could only be legitimately granted to persons who confessed their sins to their own parish priests.
Despite canon law, the practice did become corrupt:
As early as 1212 the Church acknowledged the corrupt practices of many pardoners. Church officials created numerous bulls recommending that the practice of pardoners be restricted: that they not be allowed to preach but only to read their letters.
Chaucer wasn't the only one to criticize pardons:
When the preaching friar in Piers the Plowman wishes to scorn the Augustinians, his worst accusation is that they lived by the "pur pardoners craft."
... but he was maybe the first to publicize it in a populist manner for the time:
By this gaude have I wonne, yeer by yeer,
An hundred mark sith I was pardoner.
I stonde lik a clerk in my pulpet,
And whan the lewed peple is down yset,
I preche so as ye han herd bifore,
And telle an hundred false japes more.
Martin Luther, despite the views of some revisionist historians, probably nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church in 1517 and the idea really began to take hold:
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
The threat to the Catholic church is in the idea that no one but G-d can forgive and extrapolated, that means that the Pope can aid, teach and point people in the right direction, intercede with G-d, possibly even heal ... but he can't actually forgive, nor can those he sends out to do so. This is contained in Mark 2:7:
Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?
Jesus, of course, argued that He had the authority to do that and the miracles he performed [and I have no doubt something happened, otherwise those huge crowds would not have followed Him] were material manifestations of that ability.
This is dangerous stuff, as anyone with a grasp of pyrotechnics, chemistry and the skill to speak authoritatively in pseudo-biblical language, such as Maitreya in Nairobi, [although some argue that he is something altogether different], can put on a spectacle to show he is the messiah.
Where the false messiahs fall down is that after the spectacle, there is nothing sustaining to go on with and none of the displays contain evidence of actual healing which stands the test of time. What follows is a lot of gobbledegook in blue and yellow watercolours and somewhere along the line, money comes into it. Share International is a front organization for this stuff.
What is interesting with many of these "messiahs" is how they try to ape the image of Jesus Christ in the popular imagination. Why not come as a Martian, for example? Why not as Mohammed? Why not the Buddha?
Interesting, especially as I was absolved by a blogger, which I was kinda counting on to get into Heaven.
ReplyDeleteI understand that when people discuss Maitreya its more glamorous to talk in magical terms. However, he is actually here to be much more simple. At first he won't even use the name Maitreya and just present ideas and teaching, problem and solutions NOT be magical. Very soon he will start giving open interviews and everyone will be able to judge for themselves.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear I do work with Share Internaitonal in some ways so you can take what I say with a grain of salt if yuo so choose.
Casey