Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no "absurd notion that the Catholic Church is the only correct one..." Where do non-Catholics come up with such nonsense? Is their a round-table somewhere where they sit around and figure out yet another false accusation to throw at Catholics?Where are the voices challenging the absurd notion that the Catholic Church is the only correct one and that all others are in error
Apostolic tradition is absurd? Peter, Paul, James, John, etc. probably lift their eyebrows at this. Luther, Joseph Smiths, and Calvin's traditions are much better?Where are the voices challenging the absurd notion that Church tradition has equal authority with God-breathed Scripture?
Do you know what an indulgence is?Hold on for clarification. Do you hold that indulgences for ANY purpose are valid and correct?
Can all US citizens--or citizens of any country--present a united front to anyone? The human condition is a fallen one, and organizations are the best example of this. The best we can do, individual by individual is to come together...Love one another.And he decided that the corruption had become too advanced and too strong to be reformed, so split from it. We can argue if he was correct to do so or not, but that was his decision. The question becomes therefore, is the Catholic Church completely incompatible with the other churches today, and can we all present a united front to the world, or are all the churches going to insist everything must be done their way or not at all?
The problem comes in when it is assumed a Papal declaration CANNOT be in error. It's fine and dandy to give him authority to decide a matter, quite another to presume that whatever decision he makes cannot be wrong.Which tells me right there that some haven't a clue about how and when a Papal decision is inerrant. There have only been two or three instances of this. Know how all came about? It was after decades--in one case centuries if I recall correctly--of investigations and testimonies and no decision could be reached as the matter went from the pews (the people) up through priests, bishops, cardinals. The consensus was a decision needed to be reached, and since it hadn't been reached despite all efforts, it lands in the lap of the Pope. The Pope decides and the matter is settled. For good. That way it doesn't return to the beginning with decades/centuries of investigations and testimonies before it reaches the Pope all over again.
Only non-Catholics see the Pope himself as inerrant. Catholics just roll their eyes at that nonsense.
Yes. What do you think it is?Do you know what an indulgence is?
And stop this nonsense of claiming that "my church is better than your church". I see that happening on here all the time.Can all US citizens--or citizens of any country--present a united front to anyone? The human condition is a fallen one, and organizations are the best example of this. The best we can do, individual by individual is to come together...Love one another.
Exactly what I have been saying. There were serious issues in the Church at the time which led to the split. I fail to see how, as some are doing, calling Luther a heretic and all those not in the Catholic Church heretics is profitable and productive. When an organization, even a church, becomes so seriously corrupted, a split is called for, and a possible reunion was made impossible by the way the two groups treated each other, exacerbated by the tentacles of the government in the mix. It was truly a bloody reformation period and the separation lasts to this day. I actually appreciate the different denominations that allow people to worship in ways that are culturally relevant for them, as long as we recognize that Christ wants us to be ONE.Luther was a product of his time, where long before his time, events were put into motion like a stone rolling down hill picks up debris to descend with it. It can't be stopped. If it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else. In that respect, it may be a great blessing it was Luther and not another. It could have been much worse.
And non-Catholics can see it that way. Catholics see it as a question that has been on the books for ages and no consensus has been reached. There is now consensus. Call it error if you wish, many do, but it is not a Papal error, it would be a Church error because the entire Church has been involved--including previous generations, which also included popes. It is the decision that is infallible, meaning that the matter is settled, and now we move on. Well....The problem comes in when it is assumed a Papal declaration CANNOT be in error.
Read what I said. There are people on this very board who espouse that idea.Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no "absurd notion that the Catholic Church is the only correct one..." Where do non-Catholics come up with such nonsense? Is their a round-table somewhere where they sit around and figure out yet another false accusation to throw at Catholics?
Since we both know what it is, what is your problem with indulgences?Yes. What do you think it is?
Then they should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Basically the Church says that not all Christian churches are in full communion with the Catholic faith, they have dropped some teachings and practices in place since the beginning of Christianity. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.Read what I said. There are people on this very board who espouse that idea.
I've made no such claim. Ever. No faith is better than another and no faith is better than atheism, either. All my discussions are the ways they differ. Nothing else.And stop this nonsense of claiming that "my church is better than your church". I see that happening on here all the time.
There are serious issues in the Church at ALL times. The question is what is the best way to correct the issues that do exist.There were serious issues in the Church at the time
No, what is absurd is to declare that traditions have equal authority with Scripture. That is why traditions need to be challenged. The apostles themselves did not agree on everything but challenged each other over, for example, the relevance of Mosaic traditions and how the law should be applied.Apostolic tradition is absurd? Peter, Paul, James, John, etc. probably lift their eyebrows at this. Luther, Joseph Smiths, and Calvin's traditions are much better?
Others do and that is why I mentioned it. We cannot be ONE in Christ if we persist in that.I've made no such claim. Ever. No faith is better than another and no faith is better than atheism, either. All my discussions are the ways they differ. Nothing else.
Especially since traditions were in place before New Testament scripture, correct? That aside, how much authority should be given tradition if not a hundred percent? Thirty? Forty-five percent? Fifteen percent?No, what is absurd is to declare that traditions have equal authority with Scripture.
Yes, even in Biblical times, people had opinions and varying perspectives. But then, walking in lock-step isn't the best solution either.That is why traditions need to be challenged. The apostles themselves did not agree on everything but challenged each other over, for example, the relevance of Mosaic traditions and how the law should be applied.
1. That the Church charged poor people money for them.Since we both know what it is, what is your problem with indulgences?
Ironically, we are one in Christ. We just aren't one with each other.Others do and that is why I mentioned it. We cannot be ONE in Christ if we persist in that.
It's not that I am not giving you attention. At the moment we're discussing apples and you wish to discuss oranges.But please, don't pay any attention to me,
Tradition springs from how people apply Scriptural truth to their lives. Case in point, the Mennonites I grew up with forbade the wearing of wedding rings because of the Biblical admonition against flashy adornment. That's a tradition, and it had almost the authority of Scripture, because it was based on Scripture. Then it was challenged on the grounds that a wedding ring is an advertisement to the world that the wearer was off the market, that they were in fact committed to another. One more, they forbade the use of musical instruments in Church, because of Menno Simon's rebellion against the ostentatiousness of the services of his day. That also was challenged on the grounds that it violated Scripture, specifically where we are commanded to praise the Lord with musical instruments. The point being that we have to be very careful to not blindly follow tradition where it is not warranted, not commanded by Scripture and not conducive to the cohesion of the Body. "That's the way we've always done it" is not authoritative.Especially since traditions were in place before New Testament scripture, correct? That aside, how much authority should be given tradition if not a hundred percent? Thirty? Forty-five percent? Fifteen percent?
Yes, even in Biblical times, people had opinions and varying perspectives. But then, walking in lock-step isn't the best solution either.
