[Marie2]

“Scripture cannot be the supreme authority for the simple reason that the Gospels were not written for many years after Christ died. Until they were written, the supreme authority on doctrinal issues was Peter and his successors.”

I understand that the gospels and indeed the whole NT was not written until after Christ died and rose again. Until the NT was written, indeed, all the Scriptures we had were the Old Testament and the direct teaching of the apostles. I think they were more than adequate since by definition the apostles were taught directly by Jesus, and appointed as apostles by Him. That was ‘a’ if not ‘the’ main purpose of the apostles. So I accept apostolic teaching; I just think it ceased with the death of the last apostle.

When they died I am grateful they left us the NT canon. That’s what I rely on. Not on anyone who came after any apostle.

“In addition, Christ set up His Church knowing full well that He was using foolish and sometimes sinful men. Peter’s weaknesses were well known to Christ. Still, he selected Peter, warts and all. He wanted frail humans, guided by the Holy Spirit, spreading the faith.”

Well, I’ll just say “amen” to that!

As for them setting up the Mass at Pentecost, oh no :), you know we see the Mass as rather a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, on the cross, “It is finished,” I don’t think we are instructed to re-sacrifice again and again in some way. The mass is a big argument between Protestants and Roman Catholics, of course. That, the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope and so forth, and the worship/veneration whatever you may call it of the saints.

It is true we must utilize the Scriptures as originally written, and not tinkered with. In this Protestants and Roman Catholics are in the same boat. I think we agree on the 66 books and most accepted English translations of them. So yes, I think they “got that right,” as I confess the RC church has gotten several doctrines right. I just can’t accept any unBiblical doctrine they may teach. You ask what is unBiblical they have taught? The sale of indulgences is a primary example. Obviously a terrible thing to do. Perhaps they have officially renounced that; I hope so. Purgatory is another one. Limbo, which I think has been recently, I am not sure what the term would be, recalled or changed or what have you.

It was the only church at the time that accepted the canon; you may truly call it the Roman Catholic church, I may call it the Protestant, but it was everybody, before the east/west split and the Reformation. The various church councils, consisting of duly ordained men, accepted it. We both recognize that, I think. Yes, I think they got it right!

“He said He would not leave us orphans.” God is good. I know we agree upon that.

[bdeaner]

The sale of indulgences is a primary example. Obviously a terrible thing to do. Perhaps they have officially renounced that; I hope so. Purgatory is another one. Limbo, which I think has been recently, I am not sure what the term would be, recalled or changed or what have you.

Indulgences are considered an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The doctrine is not subject to change. But it is subject to clarification, which has happened since the Reformation. Any honest and knowledgeable Catholic will agree that the doctrine of indulgences was abused at a certain point in the history of the Church; however, these abuses were in violation of the spirit of the original doctrine of indulgences, and the doctrine has now been clarified in such a way that these abuses are no longer possible without committing heresy. So, the doctrine of indulgences has not changed, but it has evolved and been clarified to prevent abuses of it. Satan loves to attack what is good. Just look at sex -- intended for an act of love to produce life -- and how that supreme goodness is perverted by Satan, into a seduction into sin, through pornography, adultery, etc. Indulgences are, in spirit, a selfless act of redemptive sacrifice for the good of another, but through Satan's temptations, some people within the Church distorted this goodness and used it for greedy ends -- and they paid the temporal price for those sins. We are all paying for those sins by living in a world in which Christianity has become fragmanted rather than acting as one, united and catholic body of Christ -- a historical consequence of sin comparable to Abraham's sin of impatience which lead him to give birth to Ishmael and therefore the religion of Islam. The purgation of those sins will eventually lead to a reunited Church -- but at the end of the line the doctrine of indulgences will remain, but purified of the possibility for corrupting it for human ends.

The teachings on Limbo were never infallibly taught. It was never an official doctrine endorsed infallibly by the Magisterium, but rather a concept that had entered the lexicon of some theologians, which in turn became part of the Catholic culture. The concept of limbo however has now been rejected by the Church, so it will never become an offical, infallible doctrine of the Church. It simply does not have the support of Scripture and Tradition that would be necessary to establish its infallibility. Limbo now can only be discussed in the past tense, as a misguided but well-intentioned concept of a bygone Catholic culture.

Purgatory, on the other hand, IS an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and will remain part of the Catholic teachings on Scripture and Tradition, and therefore will always be with the Church -- altough, as with all doctrines, there is a lot of room for clarifying those teachings and making them more clear, as with the doctrine on indulgences. Purgatory is a concept that goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Not so with Limbo.

One day soon I will probably post a thread on purgatory, since it should make for some interesting ecumenical discussion. An in-depth discussion of indulgences would also be interesting and worthwhile. Feel free to share Protestant materials opposing these doctrines, again in the spirit of ecumenical dialogue. Hopefully, even if we disagree, everyone is learning something in the process.

God bless.