RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence

RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

Shrommer -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/14/2007 4:09:52 PM)
In a sense, God did begin to build the Church through (not on) Peter when he gave Peter the message he preached on Pentecost and the first thousands were added to the Church. I like to point this out to Catholics. If they think that Peter was appointed to a special ministry, well, he was. There is even a sense in which God began to build His Church through Peter. Peter laid down Christ as the foundation, and began to build on that foundation before any other evangelist. That doesn't make him a pope, though. In fact, Jesus told us that among his followers we were not to use words like "father" (pope) and rabbi, like the other religions do.

Odeliya -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/14/2007 4:27:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: earthless I'll have to check with my hairdresser. You don't like my current look? [;)] It’s too modern for the "Rock".But you ‘ll actually be wearing headgear if we do promote you to position of Pope , so don’t worry about it. On a serious note, not to take advantage of RC brethren too much, but - can someone explain what does that means " to those who don’t believe Indulgences , according to Catholic sources presented here, anathema "? What does anaphema for such unbelief means?

Lurker -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/15/2007 3:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Odeliya Wonderful work and good succinct summary, Earthless in this post Short, informative and to the point. You rock, Earthie! Except for the minor fact that the whole Petros/Petra argument holds no water. Which is of course the entire basis of his dismissal of the concept of the papacy. It's kind of amusing at times. Catholic: Uhm, Petros/Petra makes no sense. We've repeatedly shown this through scriptural and linguistical analysis. Non-Catholic: Yes, I know. But did you know that Petros means pebble and Petra means HUGE rock??? See! The papacy is a lie!! Catholic: O_o

Odeliya -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/17/2007 2:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lurker quote: ORIGINAL: Odeliya Wonderful work and good succinct summary, Earthless in this post Short, informative and to the point. You rock, Earthie! Except for the minor fact that the whole Petros/Petra argument holds no water. Which is of course the entire basis of his dismissal of the concept of the papacy. It's kind of amusing at times. Catholic: Uhm, Petros/Petra makes no sense. We've repeatedly shown this through scriptural and linguistical analysis. Non-Catholic: Yes, I know. But did you know that Petros means pebble and Petra means HUGE rock??? See! The papacy is a lie!! Catholic: O_o Pope is probably more fitting for another thread ... It is sad though that neither of questions posted here were given any answers by Catholic camp... I would gladly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is not becasue you dont know then answers outside of pointing to NewAdvent site, but just dont wish to share... Which is of course , a private matter, and we cant force you, but as long as Catholcis are silent of the issue of Ind, Anaphemas etc i go with what other brethren know...

Acts29 -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/17/2007 9:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Odeliya quote: ORIGINAL: Lurker quote: ORIGINAL: Odeliya Wonderful work and good succinct summary, Earthless in this post Short, informative and to the point. You rock, Earthie! Except for the minor fact that the whole Petros/Petra argument holds no water. Which is of course the entire basis of his dismissal of the concept of the papacy. It's kind of amusing at times. Catholic: Uhm, Petros/Petra makes no sense. We've repeatedly shown this through scriptural and linguistical analysis. Non-Catholic: Yes, I know. But did you know that Petros means pebble and Petra means HUGE rock??? See! The papacy is a lie!! Catholic: O_o Pope is probably more fitting for another thread ... It is sad though that neither of questions posted here were given any answers by Catholic camp... I would gladly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is not becasue you dont know then answers outside of pointing to NewAdvent site, but just dont wish to share... Which is of course , a private matter, and we cant force you, but as long as Catholcis are silent of the issue of Ind, Anaphemas etc i go with what other brethren know... I agree. I would expect some sort of an answer. I do find it interesting the number of times they will refer to a website or copy and paste something from the catechism rather than explain in their own words. It causes me to wonder if they understand it themselves. Since the RCC is Christian I try to believe it is somewhere in the Bible. Rather than refer to the catechism. It would be nice if they would use a Bible passage they in order to give it some validity. Has anyone done a search regarding Martin Luther's thoughts on indulgences?

Ezra -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/18/2007 12:26:27 AM)
quote: Has anyone done a search regarding Martin Luther's thoughts on indulgences? The use and abuse of indulgences was the spark that ignited the German Reformation, and caused Luther to nail his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. In spite of the Reformation, Catholics chose to cling to Purgatory and indulgences instead of the Rock who is Christ. That is how perverse false doctrine is.

Odeliya -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/18/2007 12:56:02 PM)
[:D][:D]And how did RC respond to the Luther’s challenge? By presenting a Scriptural defense of their theology, as good servants of the Lord should reply to such? No, they acted in a classic manner of all pious, sanctimonious religionists of all times – they excommunicated, outlawed a poor man and made it lawful to kill him. So considering “Indulgences” are still in business I presume RC won’t get rid of them, ever. Which still keeps me wondering – what are they and what are they needed for? Biblical support please, (if any Catholic brother kindly wishes to answer).

Acts29 -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/18/2007 8:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra quote: Has anyone done a search regarding Martin Luther's thoughts on indulgences? The use and abuse of indulgences was the spark that ignited the German Reformation, and caused Luther to nail his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. In spite of the Reformation, Catholics chose to cling to Purgatory and indulgences instead of the Rock who is Christ. That is how perverse false doctrine is. EXACTLY!!! That was my point!

worthaboverubies -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/21/2007 11:13:05 AM)
quote: Can't I just look for and pray to an image of Mary in a sandwich, or the bark of a tree, or a stain on a highway underpass and skip the trip to Lourdes? This made me laugh. What a bunch of superstitious nonsense! In Texas, where there are many hispanics, you will see this on the news at least once every 2 years. My mother in law puts a glass of water next to a burning candle of a saint. I guess she doesn't know about evaporation.[&:]

Mannamuncher -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/22/2007 10:37:28 PM)
From Baltimore Catechism: Q. 849. How do we show that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences? A. We show that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences, because Christ has given it power to remit all guilt without restriction, and if the Church has power, in the Sacrament of penance, to remit the eternal punishment -- which is the greatest -- it must have power to remit the temporal or lesser punishment, even outside the Sacrament of Penance. Q. 850. How do we know that these Indulgences have their effect? A. We know that these Indulgences have their effect, because the Church, through her councils, declares Indulgences useful, and if they have no effect they would be useless, and the Church would teach error in spite of Christ's promise to guide it. www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson21.htm

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/22/2007 11:03:57 PM)
According to this logic a hard working , poor mother who has no money for international travel and luxury resorts in France will spend more time in Purgatory then a rich girl that would travel to Paris to do fashion shopping and oh, yeah! - visit that pretty city of Lourdes..... [/quote] Let first say that I do not believe in Purgatory whatsoever. But I think if one reads the entire article, there is a way to get a plenary indulgence without actually having to go to Lourdes. HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/22/2007 11:30:58 PM)
It can be seen then that the concepts of indulgences would be an example of Peter's successor exercising their authority to bind and loose. So if one doesn't accept the idea of a Pope having authority, then naturally one would not accept indulgences. But if one does feel that there's sufficient scriptural evidence behind the concept of the Papacy, then the idea behind indulgences makes scriptural sense. :) [/quote] Lurker, when it comes right down to it, all of Roman Catholic dogma comes down to Papal Infallibility. Or as I call it, sola ecclesia. The authority of the R.C. Church (the bishops in union with the Pope), proclaim a doctrine excathedra, and it must be believed. If it is doubted, questioned, or not believed by Roman Catholics, the problem is with them. The Magesterium, claiming to be the sole authority, finally can say whatever it wants and does not have to proove that what they have said is valid or scriptural. It becomes a circular argument. We must believe what the Magesterium has proclaimed as dogma, because they have the authority to do so, and they are never wrong when they do so excathedra. The Church is right because the Church claims to be right, therefore the Church is right, therefore you must submit. Sola ecclesia. The Church says it, I believe it, that settles it. And btw, if the Church has been found to be in error, they simply can claim that those who make such statements are in error, because VOILA, the Church can never be wrong once it proclaims a dogma of the faith. Kind of sounds like a parent who gets carried away with their authority. If the child ever asks about anything that the parent might have done wrong with regard to their upbringing, the parent just replies, "God called me to be the authority in your life and I can not be wrong." HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/22/2007 11:47:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brillstreet Why, with all the good the Pope and the Catholic Church do in the world is this the story that finds its way onto the site? Is it because it fits into a stereptype of what the Church is about ? The Pope has worked with world leaders to try to address war and poverty, genocide and indifference to suffering acorss the globe. The Church directs billions of dollars in charitable work from feeding the hungry to helping decrease infant mortality, building housing ans schools for the poor, etc., etc. And the most relevant story that makes the site is one about indulgences. I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. Brillstreet, I think you are missing the point. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has helped the poor, defends the right of the unborn, in addition to many charitable works. But this can be said of the many Buddhist monks as well as non-Christian religions. Ghandi, who was a Hindu, fought against the oppression of his people. Many non-Christians throughout the centuries have done noble things. What about all the atheists who are environmentalists, who are concerned about the care of our earth? Or nonChristians who are concerned with the abuse of animals? The list of good deeds could go on, but I hope you understand my train of thought here. Would we then defend their belief system just because of their good works? Would we then say that just because they have done good for their fellow man, or for the environment, even though they may have no concept of Christ, or even believe in God, that that is ok? Would we give them a pass when it comes to erroneous beliefs regarding salvation? Thus, the good works of the R.C.C. does not give them a pass when it comes to wrong doctrine. HD[/color]

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/23/2007 12:15:11 AM)
Hello Stephanos, I would like to address a few of your statements. I hope that I can do it with charity. Corruption is in EVERY Christian denomination. It is a result of sin. No Christian denomination is perfect and ALL have flaws INCLUDING corruption in the leadership and structure of their leadership. Yes, you are certainly right. And, there have been many Protestant ministries whose leaders have committed serious wrongs. But remember, the subject at hand on this thread is dealing with the doctrine of indulgences/purgatory, in response to Pope Benedict XVI's granting plenary indulgences to all who attend Lourdes within a certain time frame and devote themselves to certain practices. Unless you who attack the RCC are willing to use the SAME language towards the SBC, PCUSA, United Methodists, Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Baptist General Conference, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran and every other denomination here in America and across the world; I suggest you shut your mouth in terms of salvation or the need to be "born again". When you respond in such an emotional and unkind manner, you betray the very same thing you are attacking in Protestants. Do you think this was a charitable response? Do we have disagreements about doctrine? Yes! But the bible is quite clear. The ONLY requirement for salvation is a belief in Christ Jesus as God in the flesh who came to this earth to be a living sacrifice for our sins, and that He rose from the grave, defeating death and sin for those who believe in Him. Again, I think you need to rethink what the R.C.C. teaches regarding dogma/doctrine. Your Church teaches that much more is required for salvation than what you have stated. Thus, we have the dogmas of the necessity of the seven sacraments, the propitiary nature of the mass, the Marian dogmas, and the doctrine of Purgatory/Penances/Indulgences, all taught by the R.C.C. as necessary for salvation if one is to be a faithful member of the R.C.C. NO WHERE in the bible does it say you have to believe in a particular denomination, or believe in particular secondary doctrines. Yep, you got that right. But what the Bible says and what the R.C.C. teaches are often at odds with each other. And this secondary doctrine of Indulgences/Purgatory, is a proclaimed dogma of the R.C. faith that must be believed by all faithful Catholics. This is one of the BIGGEST problems I have with the Protestant church. Many look at the faults of the RCC, but refuse to look in their OWN church. You claim corruption elsewhere, but what in HIS name are you doing about the corruption in YOUR OWN CHURCH! I'll have to concur with you here. There are many self-righteous Protestants. However, be careful not commit the same offense that you are claiming Protestants are doing. And I think if you deliver your message in a less emotional manner, it may have better results. In Christ's Love, HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/23/2007 12:30:21 AM)
Hello Martyfan, Actually, the bible does not claim that it is the sole rule of faith. Also, the bible tells us nothing about what books belong in the bible. My bible is different that yours and there is nothing in the bible that will tells us which one of us is right. [/quote] And this is where you will then point us to Tradition, with a capital T, that is? I know this line of thinking and it is part of the modern Catholic apologetics way of eroding the rightful place of Sacred Scripture, thus putting Tradition on an equal footing with the Word of God. But the subject at hand is Indulgences/Purgatory, and how it is exactly that Tradition in the R.C. can somehow use Sacred Scripture to defend its position. Or is the Magesterium even required to defend its position from the Word of God? If so, please direct us to the passages that confirm we need to believe in Purgatory/Indulgences. I look forward to your response. HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/23/2007 12:49:15 AM)
Sorry Stephanos, I thought you were RC too. Wow...I defend the RCC and I automatically am labeled as a member of the RCC. Typical of the bias protestant hate for the RCC that sickens me. Does it shock you people that I, a 5-point Calvinist, would stand by and defend someone with wholly different theological views than mine. Does it shock you that a member of a SBC church preparing to go to a SBC seminary would speak up to defend ungodly attacks on my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? I really think that Jesus is sitting in heaven saying "Well you believe me to be your savior, BUT you also believe this so you are going to hell!" If you believe that, then it is YOU my friends who are in the most error here. I understand your point here. There are certain erroneous beliefs that, while they may negatively effect the way in which a particular Christian lives, they may not effect their eternal salvation. Else it would be that each one of us must be completely perfect in our theology and soteriology, which none of us are. The RCC has many many beliefs that I would fight against. But ANY member of that church who says that Christ Jesus, God in the flesh, died on the cross for the remission of our sins so that we may approach the glory of God; THEY I will call my friends and brothers and sisters in Christ. I think what is being taken issue with here is doctrines/dogmas that are proclaimed by the RCC which they teach are necessary to be believed for salvation. And btw, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed by the Pope excathedra in 1950 as binding on the conscience of all Roman Catholics as a requirement to be believed. In other words, it's no longer negotiable. And in this regard, the teaching of the doctrine of Purgatory/Indulgences is not a negotiable doctrine for an RC. All RC are bound by the Magesterium to believe in this doctrine. I KNOW I will see Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II worshiping our Creator in Heaven when my time comes. Them and millions of other faithful catholics. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. Thankfully the Lord God is the judge of us all. Otherwise we would send people to Hell who don't belong there, and admit people in Heaven who have no business being there either. HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/23/2007 1:19:49 AM)
The Catholic Church doesn't maintain that you are not Christians. It maintains that you are not a true Church in the sense that Christ founded one Church, not many. Really Brill? Are you speaking pre-Vatican II or post Vatican II? Because the modern RCC wants to tone it down a bit calling Protestants "separated brethren," a term not even remotely in the mind of the popes from Trent (where Protestant heretics were anathmatized) all the way up to popes in the latter 19th and early 20th Century, (such as Syllabus of Errors). HD The Church does not maintain that salvation is out of the reach of other Christians, however. [/quote] Perhaps you need to become familiar with papal pronouncements made from the Chair of Peter prior to Vatican II. The RCC can't have it both ways. Protestant Heretics are anathamatized - no wait, now they're just separated brethren who are no longer condemned to Hell if they are not members of the RCC. Which is it? Can't have it both ways. Again, can you tell us why we need to believe in the doctrine of Purgatory/Indulgences? HD

Heavendweller -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (12/23/2007 1:35:44 AM)
[ And an FYI to all.. The Council of Trent (and other RCC law) have never been refuted or denounced by the RCC. Hence, it is part of what they hold to be true. And in those tenets we find a lot of things that the basic Catholic apologetic will pretend is either: a) no longer in effect or b) never was held to be such Lies. [/quote] Or that the person who is representing what was said at trent was not conveying the true meaning behind what was said. [/quote] So, will the infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter please stand up? Seems the many infallible statements made by popes following Trent understood what Trent meant. But then along came Vatican II, which somehow was able to use linguistic gymnastics to say that all those previous popes really weren't saying that Protestant heretics were anathamatized afterall. Language doesn't really mean what it says when it comes to post Vat II popes. But what do I know? I'm not an infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter who proclaimed infallibly that Protestant heretics are anathamatized. And anathamatized means what again? Oh yeah, we're just separated brethren, not heretics afterall. [:o] HD

Hephzibah610 -> RE: Pope Announces New Indulgence (7/12/2008 6:58:57 PM)
In every church there are those who believe and those who don't....true believers and pew sitters. There are things that are taught that are "off the mark" It is our responsibility to pray for those who are caught in what we see as wayward belief systems, not condemn them... James 4:12 (NAS) There is only one Lawgiver and Judge , the One who is able to save and to destroy ; but who are you who judge your neighbor ? Romans 14: 1. Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4. Who are you to judge the servant of another ? To his own master he stands or falls ; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God ; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself ; 8. for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord ; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10. But you, why do you judge your brother ? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt ? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11. For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." 12. So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. 13. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this -not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. When I begin to struggle with these questions...that of someones seemingly wayward belief systems, I must remember to humble myself, pray for them and not judge. I have a saying that I made up for myself; "Criticism is discernment gone awry...pray instead." May the LORD have mercy on us all!

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI