Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
How could THEY be so wrong??? Maybe like you they misunderstand certain things. The "fear" of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, get that? Fear is another word for reverence, awe. Acknowledgment of the HOLY is understanding. Long before Socrates, Plato and Aristotle there was the Creator, HE is the epitome of ALL wisdom, understanding, knowledge and anything else mere men presume to possess. Whatever they knew, whatever men like them think they know today, in their vain pride, is foolishness with God, it makes God laugh. So, yeah, real reverence/fear of the Almighty is just the start of real wisdom. It trumps everything.
“Well, if I claimed to be a protestant you might have an argument and I might be concerned.”
All that matters is the truth - not what you claim. A Protestant is a Protestant even if he denies it. If you’re a Christian, there are only four possibilities: 1) Catholic, 2) Eastern Orthodox, 3) Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, 4) Protestant. That’s all there is. I’m not bothering to count pseudo-Christian groups precisely because they’re pseudo-Christian.
“However, I identify as a Christian....a follower of Christ just like Paul, Peter and the other Christians we read about in the NT.”
Except you’re almost nothing like them at all. You view Christianity through an American Protestant/Evangelical lens.
“The catholic has a different definition of worship than the Christian does.”
Nope. The Catholic and Christian definition are exactly the same because the Catholic faith is Christianity in itself. Protestants have a different definition - some of them at least. Episcopalians and some Lutherans would disagree for they too venerate Mary. Protestants can’t agree on Baptism either. Or the Eucharist. Or Confession.
“But then I’ve learned on these threads the catholic has redefined a lot of words.”
No, our definition is the definition in Christian terms. Many Americans don’t realize this because they are so poorly educated by the public school system that they don’t realize that English has become thoroughly Protestantized in its usage over the last 500 years. Entire words have disappeared from the language - like “ost”. I’m the only one on FreeRepublic who probably knows what that means, for instance. At the same time other words such as “worship” have become more restricted over time as to meaning. Read a Dickens novel and you’ll see “Worship” can be a person - a judge, a lord, a noble, etc. “Worship” in that sense simply meant “worthy person”, someone owed respect and honor. The original word “wyrthscype” (that’s the best I can do at transliteration) meant “honor”. In itself it had nothing to do with what we call worship today. This is why, as late as the 19th century, Americans (Catholic and otherwise) who were educated could refer to venerating the saints as “saint worship” and NOT mean it as idiot, poorly educated, anti-Catholics do today. Here’s an example from the American Catholic convert and writer Orestes Brownson: https://www.amazon.com/Saint-Worship-Orestes-Augustus-Brownson/dp/1928832881
“The catholic has idols of mary,”
Nope. We have none. We have lots of great, beautiful religious art, but not a single idol anywhere.
“they bow before these idols,”
Nope. We have none. We have lots of great, beautiful religious art, but not a single idol anywhere.
“they offer prayers to these idols while claiming praying to mary,”
Nope. We have no idols and we don’t pray to art work. I think you actually know that too.
“they rely upon mary for salvation,”
Actually, we rely on Christ first and always, but He being so generous as He is, shares His grace with us through the loving heart of His mother who always calls us to her Son. As the CCC says in paragraph 457: The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:”
I think you know that too.
“they have invoked titles such as advocate, helper, benefactress and mediatrix for her when none are warranted by the NT.”
Actually all of them are perfectly in keeping with the NT if you simply look at what Mary did at Cana. Protestants have seen this at times too: https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Pastor-Looks-Mary/dp/0879737271/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
“If you substituted the name of Zeus in the above paragraph you would have no problem identifying those practices as worship.”
Your premise is faulty for the following reasons: 1) Zeus doesn’t exist, Mary does. 2) God never acted through Zeus (because Zeus doesn’t exist), but He certainly acted through Mary. 3) There is no connection whatsoever between the Greco-Roman god Zeus (who never actually existed) and the saving God of Judeo-Christian belief. There is, however, an intimate connection between God and Mary. God sent an angel to Mary, not Zeus. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her, not Zeus. She carried the Christ child, not Zeus. And she, not Zeus, was so intimately died to His mission that she was told that she to would be pierced (Luke 2:35). Clearly your analogy completely blows up in your face. That was inevitable. https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM40.HTM
“Now that is quite an admission on your part.”
Nope. Not one bit. Again, we see that you apparently don’t even understand what you attack. And that fact doesn’t even give you pause does it?
“Indulgences came about as a later development.”
Of course. Many things have. The Book of Revelation was a later development. The finalizing of the canon was a later development. Protestantism was a completely new invention in the 16th century. And?
“On this you are correct as we do not see indulgences in the New Testament.”
As a complete thing, no, of course not - just as we don’t see a list of canonical books in scripture and we don’t see Matthew’s name anywhere in the Gospel the Church teaches is his. The roots are all there, however, for indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences As the former Calvinist David Anders puts it: “The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance.” http://calvin2catholic.com/?p=418
“Why? Because they are not warranted by Scripture.”
No, they are. Again, just as Anders puts it: “The roots of indulgences can be found in the biblical teaching on penance.”
“You prove my point that many of the practices of the rcc are not found in the New Testament.”
No, I did no such thing - and I think you know that too. And someone could make as silly a claim as you just did with ease: http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2010/01/protestant-traditions-not-found-in.html Or a more serious one: http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/protrad.htm
“They did not come from the merits of Christ.”
Oh, they sure did. As the catechism says in CCC 1478: “An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.”
“Once we confess our sins to Christ they are forgiven.”
I would agree - except there is a way of doing that that Christ has given us that you’re not using (John 20:19-23).
“Completely.”
Yes, but in a fallen world temporal punishment remains. This is one of the reasons why even those who earnestly, sincerely confess their sins still can suffer in this world. Remember, God forgave David, and still did not allow his son to survive (2 Samuel 12:14-31).
“There may be consequences to our actions but from Christ’s perspective the sin(s) are forgiven.”
Not just consequences in a mundane sense. If someone gets intoxicated he might have a car accident. That’s a consequence certainly. But other “consequences” might actually be temporal punishments. http://www.catholicdoors.com/teaching/book2/2-9.htm
“btw...i will be away from the thread for a while. I have homework for my Greek class that’s due tonight.”
I understand.
“You are thoroughly institutionalized!”
No, but you might want to consider the option. and you might want to consider the Church too.
“Jesus did not establish an institution.”
Actually, He did. The Church has - from the beginning - a visible hierarchy, definitive teachings, meetings of leadership when necessary, raised money for those in need, communication between leaders and members, written records and memorials, a common worship service, a moral code, and so on. That’s an institution. There’s no other way to look it at. Also, what Jesus built was to supersede the ancient Jewish religion in scope and admission openness but retain many of the practices, teachings and qualities of Judaism. Ancient Judaism could not be called anything less than institutional.
“Men did that and continue to do so. Your chosen religion, catholiciism, happens to be one of the oldest, but it is not His Ekklesia.”
Actually, Catholicism is the oldest Christian Church and is His Ekklesia. And most certainly no Protestant sect is.
“There are members of His Ekklesia in that religious institution, out of ignorance, but not members of HIS Ekklesia because of their membership in that institution.”
No. There’s exactly one Church, one Ekklesia. Oh, we can say there are many Churches within the Church, but they are all part of the Catholic Church. Next come the Eastern Orthodox for they have more of what God originally gave. Next comes Protestants. Lastly come pseudo-Christians. The last three are not IN the Church. They are merely affiliated with it in some sense.
“Finally, we see the root of your beliefs ... conflation of the religious institutions with THE Ekklesia / Body of Believers in Jesus.”
No. Not conflated. Subsists:
816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”
Thus, you were wrong. Apparently thinking like a carnal person and not like a Christian you apparently could only see conflation. https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm
“Catholiciism is not Christianity, no matter how often you shout or insult or condescend otherwise in defending your institution.”
No, the Catholic faith is Christianity. That in no way denies that Protestant sects can do some good - of course they can. It just admits what is ultimately indisputable. Christ only established one Church and no puny sect or series of puny latter-day sects is that Church.
We already know that there are some people who are virulently anti-Protestant (personally not just Protestantism) and they will condemn anyone who dares criticize the Roman Catholic church even going so far as to argue endlessly over everything and anything - perhaps hoping to beat down, bully, humiliate or just plain tire out those they hate. They unabashedly slander, accuse of lying, question motives and smear those who won’t back down.
Most people already know what you have stated IS the truth - even the Catholics’ own references admit that Pope Leo X did indeed condone and gladly accept money in exchange for writing and granting indulgences. They can deny it, parse words and play semantical games all day long but it doesn’t change the facts. We know and, deep down, they know it too.
Questioning and disputing the false doctrines of Catholicism does NOT make one an anti-Catholic. They know this too. It’s all part of the bullying and it has been part of their MO for a long time.
An example is your outright rejection of the answer I gave to your childish taunt of 'you don't even know who wrote Matthew' ... I am known and know the AUTHOR so whom scribed down the Gospel according to Matthew is not the important point of the Book!
**Jesus founded the Catholic Church.**
The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.
None of the afore mentioned EVER used the phrase ‘God the Son’.
None of them (including the Son of God), while living this mortal life, ever prayed to someone that had died.
So, it’s just as well you chose not to answer my question about hearing my prayer after your hypothetical decease, since you would have probably given an unscriptural, or twisted scripture, answer.
Those organizations that claim that the partaking of the ‘mass’ gives one eternal life, need to decide how many times the ritual needs to be followed. Once isn’t enough? Why not?
IIRC Peter doesn’t even bring up the subject at the household of Cornelius, or in either of his epistles.
Now come on, man up, here is a question, that you can give an easy, either/or answer to:
Which are you?......
Free Republic the vladimir998.....or.....vladimir998 of Free Republic?
(hmmm.....maybe both are good answers when using common core)
LOL ... thanks, I needed a good chuckle.
Vladimir998: "If you’re a Christian, there are only four possibilities: 1) Catholic, 2) Eastern Orthodox, 3) Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, 4) Protestant. That’s all there is. I’m not bothering to count pseudo-Christian groups precisely because they’re pseudo-Christian."
That's what I thought.
One last swipe at that dead horse. Stipulating that someone didn't HAVE to pay money for an indulgence is NOT the same thing as "that there were to be no sales of indulgences". You do see that, right?
Here is some info regarding Luther's 95 Theses and the instructions the Archbishop gave WRT indulgences:
The actual work of organizing the “indulgence-campaign” was put into the hands of John Tetzel, whose large experience in the selling of indulgences fitted him excellently for the post of Sub-commissioner. The indulgencesellers acted under the commission of the Archbishop and the directions of Tetzel, who took personal charge of the enterprise. The preachers went from city to city, and during the time that they were preaching the indulgence in any given place, all other preaching was required to cease. F36 They held out the usual inducements to prospective buyers. The plenary nature of the indulgence was made especially prominent, and the people were eloquently exhorted that the purchase of indulgence-letters was better than all good works, that they were an insurance against the pains of hell and of purgatory, that they availed for all satisfactions, even in the case of the most heinous sins that could be conceived, F37 “Confessional letters” F38 were one of the forms of ‘this indulgence. They gave their possessor permission to choose his own confessor, and entitled him to plenary remission once in his life, to absolution from sins normally reserved, etc.
The indulgences for ‘the dead were zealously proclaimed, and the duty of purchasing for departed souls released from the pains of purgatory was most urgently enjoined. So great was the power of the indulgence to alleviate the pains of purgatory, that the souls of the departed were said to pass into heaven the instant that the coins of the indulgence-buyer jingled in the money-box. F39 4. Luther’s Protest . — The Theses were Luther’s protest against the manner in which this indulgence was preached, and against the false conception of the efficacy of indulgences which the people obtained from such preaching. They were not his first protest, however. In a sermon, preached July 27th, 1516, F40 he had issued a warning against the false idea that a man who had bought an indulgence was sure of salvation, and had declared the assertion that souls could be bought out of purgatory to be “a piece of temerity.” His warnings were repeated in other sermons, preached October 31st, 1516, and February 14th, 1517. F41 The burden of these warnings is always the same: the indulgences lead men astray; they incite to fear of God’s penalties and not to fear of sin; they encourage false hopes of salvation, sad make light of the true condition of forgiveness, viz., sincere and genuine repentance.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/10/disputation-of-doctor-martin-luther-on.html
Then we have this from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/09/did-rome-have-role-in-indulgence.html:
The way it usually plays out: Tetzel gets thrown under the bus for his significant role in the indulgence controversy. But what about Rome? Were they at fault as well? Below are some sobering words from Roman historian Jospeh Lortz on the culpability of the pope and Rome:
In 1513 the twenty-three-year-old Albrecht of Brandenburg, youngest brother of the prince elector Joachim, was elected archbishop of the important diocese of Magdeburg by the cathedral chapter. (Albrecht's predecessor had been a Saxon, who also occupied the see of Mainz.) It was an old tradition that the same young man be installed as administrator of the collegiate church in Halberstadt. Finally, in 1514, Albrecht was elected by the cathedral chapter of Mainz to be archbishop of this diocese also, and prince elector. He had undertaken to support the collegiate prebend at his own expense. We have already learned how Mainz was in need of cutting down its expenditure. Within the space of ten years the archepiscopal see had thrice fallen vacant, and each time the confirmation dues to Rome for the see and the pallium had amounted to 14,000 ducats.
Now Albrecht had to apply to the pope not only for confirmation of his election to Mainz but also for permission to occupy this see while retaining that of Magdeburg and the administration of Halberstadt. Such an accumulation of benefices was unheard of, in Germany at least, and was in fact forbidden by canon law. But Leo X was not going to be hindered too much by canon law when political and financial advantage was at stake. With his decisive connivance the ambassadors from Brandenburg were granted confirmation on payment of an additional 10,000 ducats. Moreover it was the curia who made this proposal acceptable to the ambassadors, for they suggested a method by which Albrecht might raise all or part of the sum to be paid. They would make over to the archbishop of Mainz the sale of the St Peter's indulgence in the archdiocese of Mainz and in the Brandenburg territories, allowing him a half share in the proceeds. The contract was perfect; a deal was made with the Fuggers who, in return for a share in the income from the indulgence, advanced the archbishop 29,000 Rhenish guilders - and the whole shameful business was complete.
That this let loose the Reformation storm is highly symbolic and an expression of historical retribution, for all the corruption in the Church of that time had its chief cause in the fiscalism of the curia, which was rotten with simony. In the case just mentioned, the curia, contrary to canon law, in return for cash, and in the hope of gaining political advantage, were allowing a young, worldly man to hold an irresponsible accumulation of benefices. In so doing they turned indulgences into a means of exchange in big business. The executive organ of this business carried on between the custodian of the merits won by Christ's blood and a worldly prince of the Church was a bank. Corruption could scarcely have been more blatantly expressed. We are struck with amazement to discover that Catholic theologians are still so hide-bound by formalism that they can discuss whether or not this affair was simony according to the strict letter of canon law. Even to raise such a question is to create religious confusion. Anyone can see that the whole affair is utterly at war with the Spirit of Christ.
As a result of various delays, it turned out that the preaching of the indulgence, taken over by the prince elector of Mainz, did not start until the beginning of 1517. For the most part the monetary yield was little enough. The indulgence preachers of the elector of Mainz based their sermons upon his instructio summaria. This short guide provides an exact illustration of what has just been said about the abuses of the indulgence system. Its theory can be justified; but the tendency has to be sharply rejected, for, by the use of pious formulae, it was rapidly turning the indulgence sermon into sheer commercial advertising. Money, which was of secondary importance, became the central thing; the atmosphere of the sale-room prevailed everywhere; there were pompous and solemn openings, and then bargain clearances at the end.
The Dominican, Tetzel, subcommissar general of the archbishop of Mainz, faithfully followed out the spirit of this instruction. There is no doubt that he taught: As soon as your money clinks in the bowl Out of purgatory jumps the soul. Admittedly it is also certain that he never claimed that an indulgence could expiate future sins. This calumny was first set going by Luther in his pamphlet Against Hans Worst in 1541. Tetzel was very well paid; but he cannot be charged with any serious misdemeanours. He was not one of those indulgence preachers of whom Eck complained that they paid their mistresses with certificates of indulgence and confession. But he was one of those, pilloried by Emser, for whom repentance and contrition had become eclipsed by money. In fact, for the sake of financial gain he stressed in a dangerous way the mitigation of the demands of the gospel of redemption.
Joseph Lortz, The Reformation in Germany vol. 1(New York: Herder and Herder, 1949) pp. 225-227.
Now, I'm done.
To all who read this letter: Salvation in the Lord. We do herewith proclaim that our most holy Lord Leo X, by divine providence present Pontiff, has given and bestowed to all Christian believers of either sex who lend their helpful hand for the reconstruction of the cathedral church of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, in Rome, complete indulgence as well as other graces and freedoms, which the Christian believer may obtain according to the apostolic letter dealing with this matter. . . .
Here follow the four principal graces granted in the apostolic bull. These can be obtained separately. Utmost industriousness should be exercised in order to commend each grace most emphatically to the faithful. . . .
The first grace is the complete remission of all sins. Nothing can be greater than this grace, since man, living in sin and deprived of divine grace, obtains complete forgiveness by these means and enjoys anew the grace of God. Moreover, through such forgiveness of sins the punishment which one is obliged to undergo in purgatory on account of the offence of the Divine Majesty is all remitted and the pain of purgatory is altogether done away with. And even though nothing satisfactory and worthy could be given in exchange for such a grace - since it is a gift of God and a grace beyond price - yet we decree the following rules in order that Christian believers may obtain it all the more easily:
Where, however, persons are so weak that they could not easily come to such a church, their confessor or penitentiary should cause to be brought an altar to a suitable place according to his discretion. When such persons visit this place and offer their prayers near the altar or before, they shall receive the indulgence as though they had visited the seven churches. Those on a sick bed are to be given a holy picture, before or near which they shall offer several prayers according to the decision of the confessor. Thus they shall receive the indulgence in this manner as though they had visited the seven churches. Wherever any person for a certain reason desires to be relieved of the necessity to visit said altars and churches, it may be granted him by the penitentiary. However, a larger amount will become necessary under such circumstances.
Concerning the contribution to the chest, for the building of said church of the chief of the apostles, the penitentiaries and the confessors are to ask those making confession, after having explained the full forgiveness and privilege of this indulgence: How much money or other temporal goods they would conscientiously give for such full forgiveness? This is to be done in order that afterwards they may be brought all the more easily to make a contribution. Because the conditions of men are many and diverse, it is not possible to establish a general fee. We have therefore fixed the following rates:
Kings, queens, and their sons, archbishops and bishops, and other great rulers should pay, upon presenting themselves to places where the cross is raised, twenty-five Rhenish guilders.
Abbots, prelates of cathedral churches, counts, barons, and others of the higher nobility and their wives shall pay for each letter of indulgence ten such gold guilders. Other lesser prelates and nobles, as also to the rectors of famous places, and all others who take in, either from steady income or goods or other means, 500 gold guilders should pay six guilders.
Other citizens and merchants, who ordinarily take in 200 such gold florins, should pay three florins.
Other citizens and merchants, and artisans, who have their families and income of their own, shall pay one such guilder; those of lesser means, pay only one half. . . .
But those who do not have any money should supply their contribution with prayer. For the kingdom of heaven should be open to the poor no less than to the rich.
Even though a wife cannot obtain from the property of her husband without his will, she can still dispose of her dowry or other property elsewhere, which enables her to contribute even against the will of her husband. Where she does not have anything or is hindered by her husband, she is to supply her contribution with prayer. This applies also to sons who are under paternal authority.
Where, however, poor wives and sons yet under paternal authority are able to beg or to receive gifts from the rich and devout persons, they are to put these contributions into the chest. If they have no opportunity to obtain the necessary amount, they may obtain said treasure of grace through prayer and intercession both for themselves and also for the dead.
. . . The second principle grace is a letter of indulgence, entailing the greatest, exceeding quickening and hitherto unheard of powers, which will continue beyond the eight years designated in the present bull. . . . The content of this letter shall be explained by the preachers and confessors to the best of their ability. . . .
The third principle grace is the participation in all the possessions of the Church universal; . . . contributors toward said building, together with their deceased relatives, who have departed this world in a state of grace, shall from now on, and for eternity, be partakers in all petitions, intercessions, alms, fastings, prayers, in each and every pilgrimage, even those to the Holy Land; furthermore, in the stations at Rome, in masses, canonical hours, flagellations, and all other spiritual goods which have been, or shall be, brought forth by the universal, most holy Church militant or by any of its members.
Believers who purchase confessional letters may also become participants in all these things. Preachers and confessors must insist with great perseverance upon these advantages, and persuade believers not to neglect to acquire these benefits along with their confessional letter.
We also declare that in order to obtain these two most important graces, it is not necessary to make confession, or to visit the churches and altars, but merely to procure the confessional letter. . . .
The fourth distinctive grace is for those souls which are in purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins, which remission the Pope brings to pass through his intercession, to the advantage of said souls, in this wise: that the same contribution shall be placed in the chest by a living person as one would make for himself. It is our wish, however, that our subcommissioners should modify the regulations regarding contributions of this kind which are given for the dead, and that they should use their judgment in all other cases, where, in their opinion, modifications are desirable.
It is, furthermore, not necessary that the persons who place their contributions in the chest for the dead should be contrite in heart and have orally confessed, since this grace is based simply on the state of grace in which the dead departed, and on the contribution of the living, as is evident from the text of the bull. Moreover, preachers shall exert themselves to give this grace the widest publicity, since through the same, help will surely come to departed souls, and the construction of the church of St. Peter will be abundantly promoted at the same time. . . .
Source: Instructio Summaria ad Subcommissarios Poenitentiarum et Confessores (W. Köhler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit, pp. 104-16) as quoted in The Reformation, by Hans J. Hillerbrand, published by Harper & Row, publishers, Copyright 1964 by SCM Press Ltd and Harper and Row, Inc., Library of Congress catalog card number 64-15480, pp. 37-41. (emphasis mine) http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/instruc.htm
Is THIS the letter you meant, Vladimir?
We can see how deep the rot was in the rcc.
Would it not have been easier to share the following with the people? Of course, there'd been no money to be made for the rcc if they'd done that.
5This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1 John 1:5-2 John 2:2 NASB
John makes it clear we can confess our sins directly to Christ who is faithful and righteous to forgive.
The Greek behind this passage indicates it is only Christ who is our Advocate. No one else is including Mary. The Greek is clear on that.
Notice also John writes that the Blood of Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. Hence, no need for the false teaching of indulgences as promulgated by the rcc. It also dispels the false teaching of venial and mortal sins.
“You are making so many assumptions that you cannot see your own errors.”
I never make assumptions. It’s just true.
“Being thoroughly institutionalized, you must continue in your vanity to denigrate any view any evidence that contradicts your haughty condescension.”
no,m there simply is no evidence that goes against the true. You present a desperate falsehood trying to make 15th sects the Church. That simply doesn’t work.
“An example is your outright rejection of the answer I gave to your childish taunt of ‘you don’t even know who wrote Matthew’ ... I am known and know the AUTHOR so whom scribed down the Gospel according to Matthew is not the important point of the Book!”
It isn’t the important point of the book - but Protestants insist on pretending they use sola scriptura and their believe that Matthew wrote an inspired book appears no where in the Bible. This shows Protestants have beliefs they take for granted that appear no where in scripture - like sola scriptura itself - and yet they insist on a standard they don’t even actually believe in.
You do understand what sola scriptura means.....right?
“And, yes, I have read the Archbishop’s instructio summaria”
After I told you about it, right? After I brought it up multiple times, right?
“and it doesn’t say what you insist it did.”
It sure does say it.
“Since you didn’t post a link,”
Oh, so I was supposed to post a link? No, you just didn’t know where to find it, right?
“I will do so for those who are curious:”
I’ll point out what you won’t:
“may obtain according to the apostolic letter dealing with this matter. . . .”
Notice the ellipse? Your source is incomplete.
May obtain. Implies no sale.
“yet we decree the following rules in order that Christian believers may obtain it all the more easily”
May obtain. Implies no sale.
“In the first place: Everyone who is contrite in heart and has confessed with his mouth - or at least has the intention of confessing at a suitable time”
Required to make an auricular confession or intend to do so soon. Implies no sale.
“shall visit the designated seven churches in which the papal coat of arms is displayed”
Required to visit seven churches. Implies no sale.
“pray in each church five devout Lord’s Prayers and five Ave Marias in honor of the five wounds of our Lord Jesus Christ whereby our redemption took place, or one Miserere [Ps. 51], which psalm seems particularly appropriate to obtain forgiveness of sins. . . .”
Required to pray in each church. Implies no sale. Note the ellipse. Your source is incomplete.
“persons are so weak that they could not easily come to such a church, their confessor or penitentiary should cause to be brought an altar to a suitable place according to his discretion.”
Allowances are made for those who are too ill or weak to visit the seven churches. Shows this is all an act of mercy.
“When such persons visit this place and offer their prayers near the altar or before, they shall receive the indulgence as though they had visited the seven churches.”
Those too ill to do what the healthy do will be treated as if they had done it. Shows this is an act of mercy.
“Those on a sick bed are to be given a holy picture, before or near which they shall offer several prayers according to the decision of the confessor. Thus they shall receive the indulgence in this manner as though they had visited the seven churches.”
Allowances are made for the bedridden. Shows this is an act of mercy.
“Wherever any person for a certain reason desires to be relieved of the necessity to visit said altars and churches, it may be granted him by the penitentiary.”
Allowances are made. Shows this is an act of mercy.
“However, a larger amount will become necessary under such circumstances.”
Shows they scale the contributions according to need and status. Hence, not a sale. If it were a sale, the “sale price” would be the same for everyone.
“Concerning the contribution to the chest,”
Contribution. Means NO SALE.
“for the building of said church of the chief of the apostles,”
There was a specific cause for which to donate. That certainly implies no sale.
“the penitentiaries and the confessors are to ask those making confession,”
The those seeking the indulgences were asked if they had made the confession as required. Implies no sale.
“after having explained the full forgiveness and privilege of this indulgence: How much money or other temporal goods they would conscientiously give for such full forgiveness?”
Would conscientiously give. Give. No sale.
“This is to be done in order that afterwards they may be brought all the more easily to make a contribution.”
Contribution. No sale.
“Because the conditions of men are many and diverse, it is not possible to establish a general fee.”
No general fee (i.e. “no sale price”) – it’s not a sale.
“We have therefore fixed the following rates:”
The fact that all of the contributions was different shows it isn’t a sale.
“But those who do not have any money should supply their contribution with prayer.”
If it was possible for people to acquire the indulgence WITHOUT ANY MONEY AT ALL then it wasn’t a sale. Their CONTRIBUTION was prayer.
“For the kingdom of heaven should be open to the poor no less than to the rich.”
Shows this is about grace, not a sale.
“Even though a wife cannot obtain from the property of her husband without his will, she can still dispose of her dowry or other property elsewhere, which enables her to contribute even against the will of her husband.”
Contribute. No sale.
“Where she does not have anything or is hindered by her husband, she is to supply her contribution with prayer. This applies also to sons who are under paternal authority.”
Wives and sons with no money could make their contribution in prayer. No sale.
“Where, however, poor wives and sons yet under paternal authority are able to beg or to receive gifts from the rich and devout persons, they are to put these contributions into the chest.”
Contributions. No sale.
“If they have no opportunity to obtain the necessary amount, they may obtain said treasure of grace through prayer and intercession both for themselves and also for the dead.”
Don’t have any money? No problem: “they may obtain said treasure of grace through prayer and intercession both for themselves and also for the dead.” Hence, NO SALE.
Then another ellipse. And another ellipse. And another ellipse. Your source is incomplete:
“. . . contributors toward said building,”
Contributors. No sale.
“Believers who purchase confessional letters may also become participants in all these things.”
And as we have already seen, they did not just “purchase” anything here. By the way, the confessional letter is not the indulgence. No sale.
“that the same contribution shall be placed in the chest by a living person as one would make for himself.”
Contributions. No sale.
“It is our wish, however, that our subcommissioners should modify the regulations regarding contributions of this kind which are given for the dead, and that they should use their judgment in all other cases, where, in their opinion, modifications are desirable.”
Contributions. No sale.
“It is, furthermore, not necessary that the persons who place their contributions in the chest for the dead should be contrite in heart and have orally confessed, since this grace is based simply on the state of grace in which the dead departed, and on the contribution of the living, as is evident from the text of the bull.”
Contributions. No sale.
“Moreover, preachers shall exert themselves to give this grace the widest publicity, since through the same, help will surely come to departed souls, and the construction of the church of St. Peter will be abundantly promoted at the same time. . . .”
Yet another ellipse. Incomplete source.
“Is THIS the letter you meant, Vladimir?”
What parts you posted, yes, and it shows I was completely right all along. No sales.
“One last swipe at that dead horse. Stipulating that someone didn’t HAVE to pay money for an indulgence is NOT the same thing as “that there were to be no sales of indulgences”. You do see that, right?”
No. The fact that you could acquire the indulgence with no money shows money is not the key to acquiring the indulgence. The fact that the sick, the weak, the elderly were not even really required to complete all the church visits shows that not even that was the key to receiving the indulgence. Confession and contrition and a desire to serve God were the keys. That’s how indulgences started and that obviously continued. Wait until we get to Joseph Lortz below.
What you posted of Martin Luther’s view is Martin Luther’s view. It is not an objective source as is the Archbishop’s letter. Also, quoting Jospeh Lortz is funny since I doubt his last book, The Reformation: A Problem for Today, would get quoted. But let’s deal with one thing he said:
“Its theory can be justified; but the tendency has to be sharply rejected, for, by the use of pious formulae, it was rapidly turning the indulgence sermon into sheer commercial advertising. Money, which was of secondary importance, became the central thing; the atmosphere of the sale-room prevailed everywhere; there were pompous and solemn openings, and then bargain clearances at the end.”
And that proves exactly what I said. Indulgences were not to be sold (“Its theory can be justified…”). But Tetzel, although following the instructional letter in its rules forgot the proper spirit and turned it into what it should never have been (“…by the use of pious formulae, it was rapidly turning the indulgence sermon into sheer commercial advertising”). And money was not the central thing of the indulgence in the first place (“Money, which was of secondary importance, became the central thing”).
I’ve been right all along. Everything you posted shows that
I have been right all along.
“Admittedly it is also certain that he never claimed that an indulgence could expiate future sins. This calumny was first set going by Luther in his pamphlet Against Hans Worst in 1541.”
Martin Luther lied? – and Protestant anti-Catholics have been lying ever since.
“But he was one of those, pilloried by Emser, for whom repentance and contrition had become eclipsed by money.”
See? Repentance and contrition were to be the key to the indulgence. Tetzel didn’t stick to that.
“In fact, for the sake of financial gain he stressed in a dangerous way the mitigation of the demands of the gospel of redemption.”
Tetzel did it. Not Leo X. Not the Catholic Church.
Everything I said has been totally vindicated by what you have posted.
“Now, I’m done.”
You were done from the start. I kept mentioning the letter and wondered if you would finally look at it. And you not only looked at it, but you posted much of it and it TOTALLY VINDICATES EVERYTHING I SAID.
I researched this years ago. I read the sources. I was shocked to discover there was not a single shred of evidence that any pope ever authorized the sale of indulgences. I had always assumed some popes had. What I discovered is that Leo X had been maligned in a certain way. Oh, he might have been grasping – he had the basilica to finish after all – and he certainly knew abuses often accompanied the preaching of indulgences, but he never once offered indulgences for sale nor authorized them to be sold. And the instructional letter from the Archbishop of Mainz says the same thing: No sale.
We have covered this for days and you have utterly failed at every turn to prove what you falsely claimed. There is not a single source anywhere in the world, that anyone knows of, that shows any pope ever authorized the sale of indulgences. Not one.
I have been right all along. I did all the research 20 years ago.
“You do understand what sola scriptura means.....right?”
I understand that I’ve seen Protestants at FR disagree over what it means - giving an indication that it can’t be true.
That must be why subsidised and protected Arab Christians spoke Yemeni Arabic.... in north Arabia.
Pre-Islamic period[edit]
The earliest Arab Christians belong to the pre-Islamic period. There were many Arab tribes that adopted Christianity. These included the Nabateans and the Ghassanids, who were of Qahtani origin and spoke Yemeni Arabic as well as Greek. These tribes received subsidies and protected the south-eastern frontiers of the Roman and Byzantine Empires in north Arabia. However, a number of minority Christian sects were persecuted as heretic under Roman and Byzantine rules.
The tribes of Tayy, Abd Al-Qais, and Taghlib were also known to have included a large number of Christians prior to Islam.
The southern Arabian city of Najran was also a center of Arab Christianity. Letters exist in Syriac that record the persecution of believers by the king of Yemen in the 6th century, when the latter had adopted Judaism. Cosmas Indicopleustes records the launch of a punitive expedition from Ethiopia in response. The leader of the Arabs of Najran during the period of persecution, Al-Harith, was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church as St. Aretas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Arab_Christians
You're projecting, again.
Making it personal, eh?
Didn’t you learn the first time around?
Ironic, isn't it? The scorn heaped upon those who adhere to the very book the Catholic church takes credit for.
And then dismisses as being inadequate, inadequate enough that they have to add to it through their magisterium, ex cathedra proclamations, and *sacred tradition*?
If they didn't get it right the first time around, what on earth makes anyone think they're going to do better the next time with anything else they add?
If they can't be trusted to get it right the first time, they can't be trusted to get it right anytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.